Ein od milvado

"In the heavens above and on the earth below, there is nothing but Him."

It says that the heavens are mentioned first, because it is easier to conceive that there is only Hashem in the spiritual worlds, since they are far away from us conceptually, such that "the spiritual" is some abstract concept anyway, so that it's possible to imagine that all there is "up there" is just G-d or G-dliness or "mind of G-d" or some other such fuzzy idea.

But our world -- it's much more difficult to comprehend how it can be said about it that there is nothing but G-d. What about the sky, the leaves, the ground, the annoying construction company that will turn off the water in the area 11 pm to 5 am on Friday night? Surely, they exist!

So, many explanations can be brought from Kabbala, Chassidus, philosophy, but one can also think of it in a simple way, due to the contributions of modern science.

Modern science tells us that everything is emptiness. Not for the most part, but in reality. As the famous fantasy writer Terry Pratchet put it (I will find the exact quote later), most of the universe is empty, because most of its existence consists of keeping tabs on those parts which are not empty. And this doesn't just means the expanses of space between the galaxies. I mean, inside the chair you're sitting on, most of the space is just "instructions" on how the elementary particles should interact with each other.

But those "instructions" come themselves from the properties of the particles. (The way I put it to someone: let's say you have an observation of a law that if you have a skinhead and a hippy meeting in a street, they will always get in a fight. Now, is this law "imposed" on the hippy and the skinhead from the outside, or is it a sequence of their properties ["skinheads hate pacifists" and "hippies hate racists"]? It would seem the latter.)

And those properties -- what are they properties of? It seems that they are just properties of empty pieces of space. These properties interact with each other; they get assigned to other pieces of space; the pieces of space they were assigned to get other properties, and so on.

Now we have to bring in Chassidus and to say that everything is created every second ex nihilo, by G-d. So, every single moment aspect of space-time is created by G-d, and He assigns to every single aspect of space certain properties, which interact (according to the laws that He set up) with each other in time.

So, looking at this web-site, or the next time you're outside, in the fresh air, think about it: all of the Universe is filled with Dvar Havaya, the speech of G-d.

Body and soul, part 3

I am continuing my musings (including links from Chassidic texts) about body–soul relationship.

Part 1.
Part 2.

In this part, I would like to quote Mitteler Rebbe from prakim 10 and 12 of his Sha'ar HaYichud, the Gate of Unity.

Briefly, as a background, in Chapter 10, Mitteler Rebbe says that there are three levels of unity within the Essence of the Infinite Light. At the first level, it is impossible to say that there are 10 Spheroes "unified", because they exist in absolute simplicity. The Rebbe gives an example of the soul, which has power of kindness, power of intellect, power of sight, etc. But in the essence of the soul (Yechida), these powers are not unified; they exist in potential. I.e., you don't have many different forces rooming together in the essence of the soul. You have one phenomenon, which has a potential to be expressed in a number of different ways.

The second and third level involve estimation and preparation of a force to be expressed in action. On these two levels, one can say that different forces of the soul exist in unification with each other, since they are indeed distinct forces; it's just that they are still unified, because they have not yet been actualized.

What's interesting to me at this point is the language the Mitteler Rebbe uses when talking about the actualization of the soul's power (the brackets are from the translator and editor; I am not copying the Hebrew text, because it's a major pain to edit, but you can refer to the original in the above link):

[All of these three levels] are before anything came out into actuality. For example, in the power of movement, [this entire estimation] is before any actual physical movement. Or, in the spiritual force, [this preparation] is before it actually comes into a physical body. 

Then, there is a change from a spiritual existence to a physical existence, such as a physical movement and physical life force. The same is true in the example of the physical growth. 

For this [change of existence] it is necessary for there to be an initial Tzimtzum — contraction and restrains in the revelation of the spiritual [potential]. This is so that there may be a [transition] from spiritual to physical (as will be explained in chapter 12).

Examining this loshon, one gets the impression that Mitteler Rebbe would not agree that the force that results in a growth of a limb is the same phenomenon as the growth itself — or, indeed, the physiological processes in the limb that constitute the growth. Instead, the Rebbe insists, there is a tzimtzum between the spiritual force and the physical process that results from the "actualization" of the force in the body. Just, one might say, as there is a tzimtzum between the Light that creates a stone and the actual chomer/tzura of the stone.

Going further, to the relevant part of Chapter 12, we find this analogy for the Tzimtzum of Oir Ein Soif:

The second type of analogy [of Tzimtzum], which is the life of the soul [as it is invested] in the body, also brings out the same point as above. This is that in order for there to be a change from the essential spiritual life of the soul, to a [physical] life of flesh, it is necessary for there to be an initial concealment and contraction of the light of the soul. This is because there is no comparison between them. 

Nonetheless, the soul is affected by the occurrences of the body. Therefore, even the light of the physical life [force] is connected and bound with the spiritual light of the essence. This is similar to [how the aforementioned] physical growth is bound to the spiritual power of growth. [Note the distinction! — CA]

However, when one’s [physical] limb becomes severed [G-d forbid,] this does not cause a loss to the spiritual light and life force of that limb. The proof of this is from [the fact that] a blind person can give birth to a whole person, as is known. This [shows that] the spiritual [life force] is merely concealed, but it still exists, hovering over the physical life force of the body. This is called “Tzelem Ish — The form of man”. This is similar to how the aforementioned [breadth and length of] knowledge which is concealed, [encompasses the brief teaching,] etc. (All of this is explained elsewhere at length.) 

Likewise, when the spiritual power of movement comes into an [actual] physical movement, it becomes constrained within itself *. Nonetheless, the physical movement is connected and bound to the spiritual [power of] movement. There are many other examples of this as well, such as the matter of having insight into a particular concept, which comes from the power of conceptualization [of his soul], which rests upon him in a concealed [fashion]. [This means that in order for there to be a particular flash of insight into a particular field of knowledge, it is necessary for there to be a Tzimtzum in his essential power of conceptualization (Koach HaMaskil).]
__________
[* I am not sure what "it becomes constrained within itself" means. — CA]

Again, it seems that the Rebbe is saying that "there is no comparison" between the "life" of the body and the soul power that is the source of that life, the former being spiritual and the latter physical.

Although, one could also interpret the above as the Rebbe saying that there needs to be tzimtzum between the Light of the soul as it exists in Yechida (the essence of the soul) and the specific koach of the soul as it enlivens the specific body part (e.g., koach ha'reiyah as it "enlivens" the eye, the visual cortices, etc.). It would seem to me, however, that the first interpretation is closer to the pshat of the text.

The nature of the bottom-to-up influence of the body on the soul is not as clear to me from the text.

But the above text does seem to answer my objection to the idea that soul is the tzura of moach vis-a-vis brain death: if the cortex is destroyed, then the tzura of the cortex is destroyed; in that case, the soul is no longer there... and yet we rule Halachically that the person is alive. Based on what the Mitteler Rebbe said about loss of the limb and the life-force of the limb not being lost, but "hovering over the physical life-force of the body", one could answer my objection: certain aspects of the soul (koach ha'maskil, for instance) have become concealed and disconnected from the body, since their keili has been destroyed, r"l, but, first of all, the rest of the soul is still connected to the body, since those of its powers that enliven it (and are responsible for breathing and heartbeat, for instance) are still present, and second, koach ha'maskil is "hovering" over the life-force of the body; it has not been disconnected, merely concealed.

To be continued...

Turks vs. British looters

One of the comments to my previous post about lootings in London said:

I think your point [about self-defense] definitely has some validity to it, but I believe it's too late for that at this point for what's going on in London. If people did take to the streets today, I think it would only exacerbate an already out of control situation. [...] Violence breeds violence is an appropriate phrase here. Sure, as a preventative measure it might work really well, but it can't be encouraged once the violence has already started. I don't think that would help at all.

Here is a video of Turkish store owners from London defending themselves and their stores quite successfully from the looters, while the police drive on in their cars and do not get involved:
 

Meanwhile, the UK Prime Minister acknowledged that his police was useless and incompetent.

Former Cabinet minister Sir Malcolm Rifkind also raised concerns that officers were instructed to "stand and observe looting".

I repeat the questions I've asked in many different contexts:

1) If this were a CEO of an insurance/protection company, whose personal profits depended on how well his company does its job, would this happen?

2) If there were a few competing policing agencies, whose customers, in case of a given agency's incompetence, would switch to the other agencies (the way people switch from one cell phone company to another or switch to Apple after their PC has crashed one too many times), would this happen?

3) Would this happen in Texas?

Also, from here:

The Mumbai massacre could happen in London tomorrow; but probably it could not have happened to Londoners 100 years ago. 

In January 1909 two such anarchists, lately come from an attempt to blow up the president of France, tried to commit a robbery in north London, armed with automatic pistols. Edwardian Londoners, however, shot back – and the anarchists were pursued through the streets by a spontaneous hue-and-cry. The police, who could not find the key to their own gun cupboard, borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by, while other citizens armed with revolvers and shotguns preferred to use their weapons themselves to bring the assailants down. 

Today we are probably more shocked at the idea of so many ordinary Londoners carrying guns in the street than we are at the idea of an armed robbery. But the world of Conan Doyle’s Dr Watson, pocketing his revolver before he walked the London streets, was real. The arming of the populace guaranteed rather than disturbed the peace. 

That armed England existed within living memory; but it is now so alien to our expectations that it has become a foreign country. Our image of an armed society is conditioned instead by America: or by what we imagine we know about America. It is a skewed image, because (despite the Second Amendment) until recently in much of the US it has been illegal to bear arms outside the home or workplace; and therefore only people willing to defy the law have carried weapons. 

In the past two decades the enactment of “right to carry” legislation in the majority of states, and the issue of permits for the carrying of concealed firearms to citizens of good repute, has brought a radical change. Opponents of the right to bear arms predicted that right to carry would cause blood to flow in the streets, but the reverse has been true: violent crime in America has plummeted. 

There are exceptions: Virginia Tech, the site of the 2007 massacre of 32 people, was one local “gun-free zone” that forbade the bearing of arms even to those with a licence to carry. 

In Britain we are not yet ready to recall the final liberty of the subject listed by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England as underpinning all others: “The right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.” We would still not be ready to do so were the Mumbai massacre to happen in London tomorrow. 

“Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India,” Mahatma Gandhi said, “history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” The Mumbai massacre is a bitter postscript to Gandhi’s comment. D’Souza now laments his own helplessness in the face of the killers: “I only wish I had had a gun rather than a camera.”

East and West, take 3

I mean, take five.

I think this is quite awesome. On multiple levels. (Source: Alex Exler.) The video starts at 0:08.



The original.

See also this (Soviet soldiers and breakdancing).

P.S. I am quite sure I saw a cartoon or a short clip with the Take Five music in the background. It was not the Pink Panther, but something quite similar to it in style. If someone remembers what it is, please comment.

P.P.S. Got it!

American beauties

“We live in America, not Russia.” True dat. And that's why my wife's little cousin is taking a class in his school called “Russian Math”. You know, the one where they do the... times.

Go public education. Go American culture.

But then again, if you asked your average yeshiva bochur this question... See also: "We don't need no education". (I really should get to it and post the sources from our mesoira about the importance of learning science.)

Where do these people get such potent drugs?

It's amazing how Russians seem to have no-ending supply of psychotic drugs which amaze the world with the creativity they induce.

This clip is about the theory that when leaders of the world (so to speak) will come to US to discuss the nuclear armament proliferation, they will be invited to a secret Disneyland that is currently under construction. The roller-coasters in the Disneyland derive from the concept of Satan's fall from Heaven to Hell and induce the same effect on those who ride them, after the Disney engineers have finally figured out the perfect design. Apparently, the previous pope was against the roller-coasters, but he died before this doctrine was published (and Disney had something to do with the pope's death). Etc., etc.

The funniest thing is how many people believe in this.

The truth, of course, is much more sinister. You don't need to use supernatural explanations to show that the concept of any government, whether the one with Obama or any other, is evil. Some are just more evil than others.



All I have to say is this:


(source)

Contribution of Russia and England to world literature in 16th century

(Ivan IV Vasilyevich, "the Terrible", moments before going under chuppa)

For those who think that Mongol invasion had no effect on Russia, ponder these facts:

In in the 11th century, in the times of Yaroslav the Wise, Russia was one of the most civilized countries in Europe, drawing on the rich traditions of Roman and Byzantine Empires. The West was in the middle of Middle Ages. When the daughter of Yaroslav married the son of the French king, she was the only one in the court who used cutlery while eating, knew how to read and write, and did not pass gas in public. She also bathed at least once a week, which put her ahead of the vast majority of French people up until modern times.

Now, let's fast-forward to the 16th century. Russia has recovered from Mongol invasion. It is a centralized state, the largest in Europe, extending from boundaries with Poland to Siberia. It has defeated its worst enemy, Mongol-Tatars, decisively and took their last stronghold, Kazan. It trades with Italy (at around this time, vodka, known as "wheat wine", brought by Genoese sailors to Russia, becomes popular; before then, Russians drank mead), England (around this time, Russians start playing soccer and drinking tea) and other European states. It competes with such super-states of the time as Poland and Turkey, establishing Russian sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, Black sea and Caspian regions lasting until the 20th century.

England is also a centralized state competing with its enemies, France and Spain, for exploration and colonization of the Western hemisphere. It has just defeated Spanish Armada using the island of Ireland as the main weapon. Around this time, England is experimenting with potato as the new future staple food of Europe.

So, let's take examples from English and Russian 16th-century literature.

England (Romeo and Juliet by Shakespeare):

O, she doth teach the torches to burn bright!
It seems she hangs upon the cheek of night
Like a rich jewel in an Ethiope's ear;
Beauty too rich for use, for earth too dear! 

So shows a snowy dove trooping with crows,
As yonder lady o'er her fellows shows. [...]
Did my heart love till now? forswear it, sight!
For I ne'er saw true beauty till this night.

Russia (Domostroy, ed. by monk Silvester):

But if your wife does not live according to this teaching and instruction, does not do all that is recommended here, if she does not teach her servants, then the husband should punish his wife. Beat her when you are alone together; then forgive her and remonstrate with her. But when you beat her, do not do it in hatred, do not lose control. A husband must never get angry with his wife; a wife must live with her husband in love and purity. 

You should discipline servants and children the same way. Punish them according to the extent of their guilt and the severity of their deed. Lay stripes upon them but, when you have punished them, forgive them. 

Second Amendment

This is what happens when you disarm the populace:



(More here. Much more here. See also this. It's interesting that the girl blames the "rich people". I guess, Obama would say that "they can afford it". Or something about marginal utility.)

I am not saying anything against the police this time (even though, again, with the state having monopoly on policing, we simply don't know how effective the policing might have been had it been done by a number of competing private organizations). But the simple truth is that there aren't enough of them, whatever they are armed with. (Although, one could say that living in a police state tends to create a tension between the populace and the "ones in power". While living in a welfare state tends to create a sense of entitlement for good life without any effort. And when you combine the police state and the welfare state...)

And this is what happens when you allow people to arm themselves — a bunch of self-armed Koreans protecting their store during 1992 Los Angeles riots:


(source)

I could link to a bunch of stories of 80-year-old men shooting a bunch of punks trying to rob a store, etc., but it's not necessary. The simple truth is that the best protection is self-protection, and not everyone can do this:



By the way, arbat notes that the most popular items on UK Amazon.com list right now are baseball bats and police bats. I guess if you won't let the people arm themselves one way, they will go the alternate route. Just like if you implement price control, you will at the same time create deficit and black market. As the weird mathematician from Jurassic Park said, "Nature finds the way".

P.S. A nice collection on the topic from Istapundit.

It is fascinating to see how postmodern Western societies react to wide-scale rioting, looting, and thuggery aimed at innocents. In Britain, politicians contemplate the use of water cannons as if they were nuclear weapons; and here the mayor of Philadelphia calls on rappers to appeal to youth to help ease the flash-mobbing that has a clear racial component to it (is the attorney general’s Civil Rights Division investigating?) [...]

We seem able to admit that massive federal and state entitlements have created a sense of dependency, a loss of self-respect and initiative, and a breakdown of the family, yet we still seem to fear that trimming the subsidies would lead to some sort of cold-turkey hyper-reaction. We assume that society is to blame for disaffected youth and therefore are hesitant to use commensurate force to quell the violence or even to make it clear that perpetrators are responsible for their own conduct. Yet at some point — when the violence reaches middle-class communities or, in serial fashion, downtown or suburban stores — we likewise assume that sufficient force will be used. Sociological exegesis will go out the window. Reality has a way of dispelling such cognitive luxuries.

[...]

One of the more depressing things about these riots is the way that the only thing that the Police can think of to say to us non-looters and non-arsonists is: “Don’t join in” and “Let us handle it”. If the bad guys start to torch your house, let them get on with it. If they attack your next door neighbour, don’t join in on his side. Run away. Let the barbarians occupy and trash whatever territory they pick on and steal or destroy whatever property they want to. 

There was a fascinating impromptu TV interview with some young citizens of Clapham last night, not “experts”, just regular citizens, one of whom stated the opposite policy. Law abiding persons should get out of their houses, he said, en masse, and be ready to defend them.

The trouble with “letting the Police do their job” is that in the precise spot in which you happen to live, or used to live, their job probably won’t start, if it ever does start, for about a week. In the meantime, letting the Police do their job means letting the damn looters and arsonists do their job, without anyone laying a finger on them, laying a finger on them being illegal. This is a doomed policy. If most people are compelled by law to be only neutral bystanders in a war between themselves and barbarism, barbarism wins. The right to, at the very least, forceful self defence must now be insisted upon.

 

What is redemption?

First, some links:

The best thing I can recommend for learning on Tisha B'Av is the excellent (many people have told me the best they've encountered) class on what Geula and Moshiach mean by my mashpia: "A Vision of the Future" (if you find the quality of the sound too low for understanding, I suggest you use headphones or turn off your air conditioner; or, better yet, download it and listen on your iPod).

Another good class to listen to is one by Rabbi Paltiel: "Diminishing the sadness of Tisha B'Av through simcha".

* * *

My wife and I had the pleasure to spend this Shabbos with my mashpia, Rabbi Yochanan Rivkin and his family, who were visiting New York. During the farbrengen, he spoke about the idea of the number three, which is a bit of a magical number in Judaism: it signifies at the same time permanence (an event repeating three times becomes a chazakah) and a union of the two opposites.

We see this in the idea of the third Beis HaMikdosh. It will be at the same time a permanent Beis HaMikdosh which will never be destroyed, and it will combine the best aspects of the first two Temples.

The first Beis HaMikdosh represented the idea of top–down relationship between Hashem and Jews. The times of the First Temple were the times of prophecy, of miracles (in the Temple), of G-dly revelation (to the point of revelation of Hashem's Essence, which went even beyond the concept of miracles). The problem was, however, that this reward, this relationship were unearned. The Jews would come to the Temple, receive amazing revelation, and still remain unchanged. Therefore, the Jews were free to degrade in their spiritual status, despite the moments of awesome influence.

The second Beis HaMikdosh was reverse: all about the idea of Jews' effort. There was no prophecy, no open miracles, no infinite revelation. It was all about one's work. Which meant that the reward was earned and internalized, but it also meant that a Jew did not receive the infinity of G-d — rather, only a limited degree of revelation that was proportionate to his spiritual level. When the spiritual level of the Jewish people fell low enough, they became automatically unworthy of Beis HaMikdosh.

Because of the two limitations of the two temples — in the first one, that the reward was unearned and not internalized, and in the second, that the reward and relationship were limited and subject to the level of a person and thus also subject to the eroding forces of time and space — both were not permanent.

And this is what the Third Beis HaMikdosh will combine: at the same time, the awesomeness and infinity of top-to-bottom revelation and the internalization of that revelation into the souls and bodies of the Jews themselves due to their bottom-to-top effort.

This is something for us to look forward to and to pray for. But on a certain level, we are also required to bring this about by corresponding to this level ourselves. Now, this is a very difficult thing to do: how do you reconcile the infinity and the finitude?

Nevertheless, this is what is required of us, and this is, as one of the guests at the farbrengen said, to a certain degree the essence of Chassidus Chabad of the seventh generation: to remain someone fully connected to holiness, to spirituality, to Torah and mitzvos, to Chassidus, to uncompromising standards and mesirus nefesh, to ignore the scoffing and the influence of the world outside — and, at the same time, to remain connected with the world, to the point of not only interacting with it, but also influencing it.

One could say: this is a very difficult thing to do. Rabbi Rivkin told a story of Rabbi Segal who complained that the assignment given to him by the Rebbe was very difficult. The Rebbe responded: "Since when did you make a contract with the Almighty for an easy life?"

Point being: we are here for a purpose. If you want to just live your life away, not worried about anything except yourself, fine. You can do that. And I don't mean eating cheeseburgers. An intelligent person recognizes the truth of Torah and the value of mitzvos for himself, for his neshama. So, one can learn Torah, do mitzvos, live in a wonderful community, enjoy his life, both physically and spiritually — and what's wrong with that?

What is wrong is that we are still in golus; Beis HaMikdosh is not here; Moshiach is not here, and the purpose for which Hashem created this universe has not been fulfilled.

So, the Previous Rebbe said: In these times, called the heels of Moshiach, everyone must ask himself: "How am I contributing to the coming of Moshiach and geulah?"

And his follower, our Rebbe, answered that question for himself and gave each of us an opportunity to answer it as well.

P.S. See also this article about the number three in Judaism.

Public property and paintings

The picture:

(more here)

The artist:

(more here)

My point is not who is right or who is wrong. On the one hand, emotionally, one can see that he did (and does) something beautiful, and he didn't damage the "public property" in any way; it is definitely an improvement over graffiti or just empty concrete. On the other hand, yes, he did commit an act of "unsanctioned painting and writing on public property" without getting permission from "the public".

Incidentally, "the public" in such cases tends to be some local bureaucrat, who, for the most part, was never even elected by the people. Nor can he be replaced by the people; he might get replaced through an elected official, but only if he does something truly terrible. So, in what sense these bureaucrats represent the will of people is not completely clear to me. See more about the rule of civil service here. In particular, this video:



What my point is, however, is that had this been private property, things would be much simpler:

1) Either the owner would agree for the artist to paint on his property or he would not. This way, there would be much less legal, moral, emotional, utilitarian, and "rights-ethics" ambiguity.

2) A private owner (while interested in protecting his property from random vandalism, graffiti, obscene writing and pictures) would probably be quite happy to have such a painting as the above on his dock, since not only would it be aesthetically pleasing to him and the public, but it would also make his dock more attractive and more famous thus increasing his profit.

(On the other hand a bureaucrat does not care about making what he is in charge of profitable. If his budget — assuming he has one — is unbalanced, or the "public property" he is in charge of is losing money, he can always get more money from taxes or government printing/borrowing money.

And obviously he will say that he needs more money, since what he is charge of is benefited from by "everyone", even if it is a dock in Volgograd, while he is taking money from a restaurant owner in Moscow. With private business it is much simpler. If the restaurant owner from Moscow makes use of the dock in Volgograd, the dock owner can send him an invoice.)

The artist's rendition of government and bureaucratic civil service:

Waiting in front of an open door

(source of the picture)

One day, Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi met Eliyahu Hanavi in Peki'in, at the entrance of the cave where Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai had hid. "When will Moshiach come?" Rebbi Yehoshua asked Eliyahu. "Go ask him [Moshiach]," he replied. "He is sitting in Gan Eden, parallel to the entrance of Rome, amongst the suffering paupers. He cleans his wounds one at a time, so that if he is suddenly summoned to redeem the Yidden, he will not tarry for even a moment."

Rebbi Yehoshua went to the gates of Rome and asked Moshiach, "When will our master come?" "Today!" Moshiach assured him. Evening came, but Moshiach did not reveal himself. Rebbi Yehoshua returned to Eliyahu Hanavi, "Moshiach lied to me! He said he would come today and he did not." Eliyahu explained, "He was referring to the 'today' of the possuk, 'Today, if you will listen to Hashem's voice...'"

(סנהדרין צח ע"א)

[source]

Since I like the above source of Jewish pictures, here are a couple more (another old man and a child):




\\

(My wife says: This child's face is clearly modern and not chassidic. Oh well...)

Red Bull commercial

I have been considering for a long time to monetize my blog. Today is the first step: a commercial for Red Bull from Norvezhskiy Lesnoy and Artemiy Lebedev. (For those who don’t speak Russian, the video is quite self-explanatory.)

What to do if you ran out of washing water on a ship? PG-13.



“To drink this rubbish is completely impossible. But for other purposes, such as brushing your teeth, refreshing yourself, cleaning your ears, etc., it’s quite good.”

Busting traffic in cities

Kamyshin and Chapayev

Artemiy Lebedev, Norvezhskiy Lesnoy et al. are continuing on their journey down Volga river. I skipped a bunch of videos because they weren't that interesting to those "not in the parsha", so to speak (i.e., those who don't speak Russian, known anything about Russia, are not interested in Lebedev's adventures, etc.). But this one was somewhat interesting, so I am posting it.

In this adventure, Lebedev and Lesnoy find a house with a structure that looks like public toilet in the yard. Then one of the denizens shows up and explains that because central sewage is broken both inside the house and for the outhouse, the sewage gets expelled right to the yard. So, basically, people live on a central street of one of the Russian cities in conditions of Medieval France. (Not just socio-economically, but also politically. At least they don't live in medieval Russia anymore.)

Next, Lebedev finds a sign that states that one is not allowed to enter a park after dark. He says: "I have seen such things before only in America."

Afterwards, Lebedev and Norvezhsky discuss whether the city is a [censored] or a nice place (except for that one house), Lebedev is asked to help with the correction of a bus schedule, and Lesnoy finds a leaf of marijuana. As usual, Lebedev notes old buildings in Russian cities that are gradually being destroyed and replaced with modern monstrosities. (Whenever possible, on such trips, Lebedev unscrews old Soviet and imperial signs to take to his studio. Because Russian authorities will just destroy the signs, while he will preserve them.) Now that you have my libretto, you can understand what's going on:



In this video, Lebedev and Lesnoy (wearing European shorts) visit Chapayev's house and look at a unique-looking cigarette kiosk:

A penny for your thoughts (take 2)

I heard recently a story on the Living Torah (whoever has seen this Living Torah or knows this story can correct or supply the details in the comments).

When one of the Rebbeim was arrested (I think it was Tzemach Tzedek), a chossid of his came to Petersburg from Lubavitch (I clearly remember it was Lubavitch, which makes me think it was not Alter Rebbe who was arrested, but I may be wrong) to support the Rebbe, or carry out some mission, etc. He was met by another chossid, who was a permanent resident of the capital, and they were walking on Nevsky Prospect, one of the main streets of Petersburg.

The first chossid got dressed that morning the way he normally got dressed in Lubavitch, i.e., not paying too much attention to his looks, and as a result, he missed a button on his pants (19th century's equivalent of "his fly was partially unzipped"). The second chossid noticed that and pointed it out to the first chossid, saying: "We are on Nevsky Prospekt; it's not proper to be dressed this way."

The first chossid looked at him, astonished, and asked: "Is this what's on your mind?"

I think the point is not that the first chossid disagreed that chassidim need to be dressed in a presentable way, l'hatchillo. He was just surprised that the second chossid's state of mind permitted him to notice such a chitzoiniusdik thing.

(My initial interpretation of what the first chossid meant was that the second chossid should've been thinking about Chassidus, even while walking on Nevsky Prospekt — or, perhaps, especially when walking there. But now I am thinking he could have also meant to ask: "How can you think about this when the Rebbe is in jail?")

This story reminded me of a well known saying by Anton Chekhov: "A refined person is not someone who pretends not to notice ketchup spilled on white table cloth, but someone who does not notice it."

(The real word he used was "intelligent", with hard "g", i.e., a member of intelligentsia, which means in this context "a refined person", but not only in cultural way, but also in a personal way. In Yiddish, we would say, "a mentch" or "an eidel person". In British English, one could probably say: "a gentleman". But all these words' meanings are slightly different.)

I found it interesting that in the ideals of both cultures, Chassidus and Russian intelligentsia, despite the fact that in many aspects they would be antagonistic to each other, the emphasis nevertheless was on downplaying the physical. But not in a forced way, as a result of meditating at length on "how terrible the physical is". One simply becomes so focused on the spiritual that the importance of the physical fades away.


By "physical" I mean here "chitzoinius", not "parnosso" of either your family or a fellow Jew. Which brings me to another point. All of this is notwithstanding the fact that a Chossid cannot look like a shlepper when walking outside or spill ketchup on his hosts' Shabbos tablecloth. That is the flip-side of Chassidus Chabad — perhaps not completely grasped by some of Chabad's modern elements — that despite the fact that pnimiyus is the ikkar, chitzoinius cannot be ignored when our job is to influence it. To some degree, I suppose, that was the point of the second chossid in the above story.

So, the ultimate goal of a chossid is not to focus on the spiritual or the physical (although first is definitely better than the second), but on his job in this world: to unify the spiritual with the physical. We do not serve "gashmius" or "ruchnius". We serve G-d.

Caricatures

The concept of a caricature is very interesting. By changing the reality or presenting it in a more grotesque view, one is exposing the aspect of the reality that would otherwise be unseen from a more "realistic" picture or photograph.

A few caricatures of the politicians from Russian caricaturist, Denis Lopatin.

Fidel Castro and Che Guevara:



American version of the above:



Russian President Medvedev and Russian Prime Minister and ex- and future President, Putin:



Leaders of post-revolutionary Russia (the titles say: "bald-hairy-bald-hairy-bald-hairy"... the leaders are: Lenin, Stalin, Khruschev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Putin, Medvedev, Putin, Medvedev, Putin, Medvedev):



Putin and Medvedev, again:



Two socialists and a Churchill:



Dennis himself:

Gavra vs. cheftza

(source — strongly recommended)

Inspired by the discussion in the comments to this post. An excerpt from here:

The biblical commandments are the 613 mitzvot explicitly or implicitly contained in the Five Books of Moses. The rabbinical commandments are the laws instituted by sages throughout the generations. (For example, praying three times a day, reciting kaddish after the dead, making a blessing before eating, lighting Shabbat candles, and the festivals of Chanukah and Purim are all rabbinical institutions. Indeed, a major part of what we call "Judaism" is of rabbinic origin.)

Both are equally binding upon the Jew. The sages institute their laws by the divine authority expressed in the verse: "And you shall observe all that they shall instruct you" (Deuteronomy 17:10). Thus, the blessing recited before the performance of a mitzvah -- "Blessed are You, L-rd our G-d, King of the Universe, Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to..." -- is recited over rabbinical mitzvot as well. G-d is the sole commander of a mitzvah, whether it is written or alluded to in His Torah, or instituted by human beings to whom He imparted the authority to interpret and safeguard His laws and legislate Jewish life.

Nevertheless, Halachah (Torah law) distinguishes between biblical and rabbinical laws, applying a different set of standards to each of the two categories. One of these differences is that, according to many halachic authorities, biblical laws define the nature of their object, while rabbinical degrees are only prohibitions upon the person. For example, if biblical law forbids a certain food, this indicates that the very substance of the food is intrinsically negative and profane; on the other hand, rabbinical proscription of a certain food is strictly a prohibition upon the person not to eat it.

At first glance, this seems to indicate that rabbinical mitzvot are less "real" than biblical ones; that while the biblical law affects the very nature of its subject, the rabbinical law is superimposed over human life, having the authority to command and instruct but not to define reality. On a deeper level, however, this alludes to the fact that the rabbinical law is the more profound expression of the essence of the mitzvah as divine will.

The biblical mitzvot define the nature of our world, expressing the fact that their predominant element is the mitzvah's role as molder and illuminator of the created reality. Not so the rabbinical commandment, which is concerned only with what man should or should not do, not with how this affects him or his world. Thus it asserts the "decree" element of the mitzvah: the mitzvah as it transcends all relation to physical life, its sole purpose being the fulfillment of a divine desire.

Another excerpt, from here:

In the third chapter of Ethics of the Fathers, the mishnaic sage Akavia ben Mahalalel teaches:

"Reflect upon three things and you will not come to the hands of transgression. Know from where you came, where you are going, and before whom you are destined to give a judgment and accounting. From where you came -- from a putrid drop; where you are going -- to a place of dust, maggots and worms; and before whom you are destined to give a judgment and accounting -- before the supreme King of Kings, the Holy One, blessed be He."

The Mishnah is known for its concise wording -- every extra word or phrase is interpreted by the Talmud to enfold many layers of meaning and instruction. On the face of it, the above-quoted Mishnah is just using lengthy, repetitious wording to convey a single idea. Upon closer examination, however, the Mishnah includes three sentences, which can be interpreted as three separate messages:

1) "Reflect upon three things and you will not come to the hands of transgression."

2) "Know from where you came, where you are going, and before whom you are destined to give a judgment and accounting."

3) "From where you came -- from a putrid drop; where you are going -- to a place of dust, maggots and worms; and before whom you are destined to give a judgment and accounting -- before the supreme King of Kings, the Holy One, blessed be He."

The Lubavitcher Rebbe explains that Akavia ben Mahalalel is in fact speaking to three different types of people: the materialist, the spiritualist, and the tzaddik.

The third and last part of our Mishnah is addressed to the materialist, who sees nothing higher -- indeed nothing other -- than the body and its needs, wants and desires. It's all but useless to speak to the materialist about his soul. So we talk to him about his body -- about the fact that it's nothing more than a bag of flesh with a slimy beginning and a maggoty end, and that there's a higher authority before which it will one day be taken to task for all it did during its earthly life.

The second and middle part of the Mishnah is addressed to the spiritual person. To him, we need not speak of the lowliness of the body; instead, we extol the virtues of the soul: "Know from where you came, where you are going, and before whom you are destined to give a judgment and accounting." We speak of the soul's life origins as "a very part of G-d above," of the "World to Come" to which it is propelled by the good deeds of a virtuous life, and of the day it will merit to give "a judgment and accounting" before the Source from which it came and to which it shall return.

And then there is the tzaddik, the perfectly righteous individual. To the tzaddik we don't speak of the lowliness of the body, for the tzaddik's body is refined and rarified, as holy, perhaps even holier, than his soul. Nor do we speak to the tzaddik about his soul -- the tzaddik doesn't care about his soul. He's not interested in spiritual development. He's not interested in the World to Come. All he desires is to lose himself within the all-embracing reality of G-d, like a tiny candle-flame absorbed and nullified within a great fire.

Still, the tzaddik, too, can "come to the hands of transgression." The tzaddik, too, can sin -- not in forgetting about G-d, but in forgetting about the world. The tzaddik may backslide to the pre-Sinai reality, when there were only two things -- only G-d and man, and their quest for each other.

So the tzaddik is admonished: "Reflect upon three things." Remember that Shabbat morning at Sinai when G-d descended upon the mountain and decreed that the world shall henceforth be made real. Remember the day on which G-d decreed that your purpose in life is not to lose yourself within Him, but to bring Him into the world and uplift the world to Him.

What party does G-d want you to vote for?

This Shabbos I read a fascinating excerpt from one of the Rebbe's sichos. The Rebbe asks: Why (according to some opinions), is it a chiyuv to loan money to a non-Jew for interest? One can understand why it's a chiyuv to loan a Jew money for no interest (a Jew is your brother); one can also understand why it's permitted to ask interest from a non-Jew (that's the normal state of affairs*) — but why should asking for the interest be required?

The answer is interesting: because of the prohibition of bal tashchis, wanton destruction. If a Jew is permitted to loan money to a non-Jew for interest and does not do so, he is destroying some of his potential property (the money from the interest). Therefore, it's a requirement for him to request the interest.

The ramifications of this reasoning are very interesting. First, a Jew must be careful about being financially responsible. Hashem gives him his possessions for a reason: to use in his avoidas Hashem. A Jew was sent into this world to elevate it by making it more G-dly. All physical objects contain "sparks of G-dliness", and it is our job to elevate them by doing mitzvos with those objects — the process of elevating the sparks converts the objects into Dira B'Tachtoinim, the Dwelling Place for G-d, which is the purpose for which G-d created everything, both the spiritual worlds and the physical one, and the purpose for which our soul descended into this world.

(This is why, according to Chassidus, it is ossur to steal. When Joe steals Bob's pencil, he is taking the object which has the sparks of holiness which were destined for Bob to elevate. Joe cannot elevate them — not only because those sparks were destined for Bob, but also because it is impossible to elevate sparks of holiness in the objects that are halachically forbidden to us, Mi'de'Oraysa or Mi'de'Rabbanim.)

Therefore, when a Jew is not careful about his property or financial situation, he is denying a part of the world from becoming Dira B'Tachtoinim. He is failing in one aspect of his purpose in this world.


There is a second interesting ramification. Seemingly, Torah does not support any particular political view or any particular political party. You may say that actions of liberals are damaging to our economy and wealth, but so what — what does this have to do with Torah?

But from the above, we see that Torah cares about the wealth of a Jew. The government's actions lead to a Jew losing his wealth. First, from direct taxation — which is not even spent on anything pertaining to the Jew's livelihood, such as paying for the roads he drives on or police/army that protects him. Second, from the government's control of money production that leads to devaluation of money (you can think of it as unseen taxing, or as the government counterfeiting money — the effect on the worth of the money you have in your wallet is the same). Finally, from the policies damaging US economy, which leads to a Jew losing money from higher prices of food, gas, bills, lodging, etc., having to pay higher interest on the loans he takes out, from losing money in the investments, etc.

Therefore, although one may say that Torah does not care about a particular political ideology (a statement I do not necessarily agree with, since there is a concept of yashrus in Torah), Torah definitely cares about the effect this ideology has on a Jew's livelihood, since his livelihood is an aspect of his avoidas Hashem — both from a simple point of view that if he doesn't have enough money, he may not be able to carry out all the mitzvos, or at least carry them out b'hiddur, and from the above point of view which states that if a Jew loses even one extra dollar, that's a dollar that he was supposed to make into a Dwelling for Hashem!

Furthermore, I think the concept of bal tashchis applies not just to Jews but also to non-Jews. If a certain political ideology's actions lead to general destruction of civilization (such as multiple businesses closing all over the country due to high taxation or governmental regulation, services and products not being used by people due to damaged economy or due to liberal propaganda about things like global warming), Torah is against this ideology and the people who support this ideology.

________
* Many libertarians (such as on Mises.org forums) ask: why is the Bible against interest? Well, it's not! It's only forbidden to ask interest from a Jew, since he is your brother. It is stated that the interest that you forgive him is a gift that you're obligated to give him. A gift — not something that is inherently a bad thing. (We don't say that a man not committing adultery with someone else's wife is a gift he has to give to the woman's husband; adultery is an inherently abominable phenomenon.) Why a Jew has to give that gift to another Jew is a different question, which can be explored from socio-moral to Chassidic perspectives.

But in the areas where a Jew is not required to give this gift, there is nothing wrong with charging interest; in fact, he is obligated to do so.

Evolution and maturation

It says in Chassidus that as the body matures, during the gestation, so does the soul (the level of the soul that is mislabesh b'guf).

I don't know if the two processes are the same (as discussed in the previous posts), or if maturation of the body parallels the changes in the soul, because the keili must be able to receive the oir, but here are some of the changes that happen with a few kinds of inhibitory neurons (source). If you're not interested in Neuroscience, you can skip to Chassidus after the figure.


(click on the image to enlarge)


Meanwhile, a quote from a ma'amor by Frierdiker Rebbe (Ma'amor 38 from the Chassidic Discourses translated to English, starting with: "Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Each and every day, a Heavenly voice goes forth..."):

The bodies of all created beings are physical, while their souls are spiritual. Though there are differences between the bodies and souls of each of the four categories of terrestrial beings — inanimate, vegetative, animal and man — there are also similarities. The physical bodies of inanimate objects conform to their souls, just as the physical substance of vegetation dovetails with its soul. So too, animal bodies suit their souls and human bodies correspond with their souls. 

In all instances, the life-force which emanates from the soul causes the body itself to be alive (rather than there being a living soul in a dead body). Indeed, a body's physical life is completely dependent on the soul that vivifies it; bodies themselves can neither hear, see, nor understand. Nevertheless, the soul clothes itself in its body in such a fashion that the whole body lives withing each of its limbs. Thus, the eyes see, the hands work. Unlike a machine which moves in response to an external activating force, the body enjoys an internal G-dly unity with its soul (and is thus itself alive). This causes both body and soul to feel the purpose for which G-d created them, and to fulfill G-d's desire by implementing their role in creation. 

Just as G-d's desire for body and soul to unite causes the physical body to conform precisely to the soul that enlivens it, so too does the soul conform with the physical body, so that it is able to imbue all of with life. Thus, the unification of the spiritual soul with the corporeal body causes body to attain a loftier status than it had enjoyed previously. 

Conversely, that part of the spiritual soul which permeates the body is, upon its descent, lowered in spiritual status. Previously it was a wholly spiritual being, with no connection to physicality, and was included within the hierarchy of the spirit. 

The Midrash states that the soul is divided into five distinct categories: Nefesh, Ruach, Neshamah, Chaya and Yechidah. Each name indicates an aspect of the soul's function. The highest part is Yechidah and the lowest is Nefesh, whose purpose is to enliven the body. All five parts are connected, and before G-d sends a soul down to animate a body, Nefesh (the part that actually descends) is integrated with the other four soul levels. [...]

The Frierdiker Rebbe goes on to say that even after its descent, Nefesh is still connected with the other parts of the soul, albeit less consciously or fully. As a result, Nefesh is capable of sensing, for instance, the Heavenly voice (heard by Chaya) which daily urges Yidden to repent and do mitzvos. This sensation is what drives many Jews to do something positive and constructive in their lives, although for many of them, that urge is misdirected. (It is also the reason why sometimes we get sudden bursts of energy and inspiration, both in our material affairs and in the different aspects of avoida, such as learning or davening.)

Nefesh is also able to express Yechida when a Jew goes on mesirus nefesh, chv"sh, or when he meditates on how he is capable on going on mesirus nefesh not to separate himself from Hashem and how each sin separates him from Hashem due to being a micro-act of avoida zarah. As a result of this meditation, the Jew's hidden love is aroused, and he does not sin.

Form and substance in North Korea

The discussion in the last post reminded me of this video from Vice Guide to North Korea. (Some music and singing heard in the video, but sound is not really important; so, if you’re makpid on music in videos, you can just turn off the sound; some female dancing, but level of the detail is minimal). The actual ikkar starts at 1:30:



Basically, the connection to the last post is that you could imagine this huge "TV" made of LCD "pixels" (each pixel a few feet wide and tall), or neon signs, or people holding cards of different colors. As long as the dynamics of the people changing cards is the same as that of pixels changing colors, the effect should be same. So, the chomer of the process — who is holding the card — is not important, only the tzurah (the relationship between the rectangles and the color of each rectangle).


On a related note, that’s also the way socialists view the society: as long as the "function" of a particular element of the society is played, the contents of that element are not important. Of course, the function is defined by the Central Headquarters. For instance, from the point of view of Mr. Bernanke, the function of the rich people in this country is to serve as a form of savings account. When things get tough in the economy (or when the government is running out of money), we can always tap into the savings account.

Of course, from some conservatives’ point of view, it’s not too different. The “rich people” are also seen as playing a particular role. It’s just that conservatives know more about economics than the liberals. They realize that the rich people’s “function” in the society is to direct investment of capital into different businesses.

That’s why they’ve become rich — because they were successful in investing the capital in the projects that the public deemed worthwhile, voting for them with its money (for instance, Bill Gates became rich by investing into Windows OS; enough people voted with their money for this product being useful for them by buying it; as a result, Bill Gates became rich). This is also the reason why they need to continue to hold on to that money: they need to be able to use the capital to invest into new projects, or change the nature of the old projects, responding to (or anticipating) the changes in the public’s needs.

So, that is why it’s a bad idea to tax them whenever things become tough in the economy: it’s almost exactly equivalent to bleeding a patient when he is trying to fight an infection. (Perhaps a better example would be to pump the blood from his heart and direct it into his urinary bladder. What happens to that blood is what happens to the money that the government takes from the public in taxes.)

But from libertarians’ point of view, taxing the rich is wrong because it’s poshut immoral to take money from people to pay for the services which they a) don’t benefit from, b) didn’t agree to pay for. Doesn’t matter whether they are rich (and “can afford it”) or poor. (Ironically, because taxing the rich hurts the economy, it’s the poor people who suffer the most. So, yes, rich people can afford to live through the liberals’ “management” of the society; the poor cannot.)

Forms and substances

I would like to advertise two posts by Rabbi Micha Berger:

Form and Information
Mind, Pereception and Metaphysics

If I were to summarize the two posts (the parts relevant to the discussion below), I'd say:

1) Phenomena of a world higher become the forms of the phenomena of the world lower
2) Soul is a ray of G-dly Light that pierces the spiritual worlds
3) The lowest level of the soul is the highest level of the brain, its form

We recognize that each object has two components: matter and form (chomer and tzurah). A key consists of the metal from which it is made and its unique shape. If the metal is replaced from aluminum to copper, but the shape is the same, what was replaced is the matter, while what remained is the form. If the key was melted down, its matter remained the same, while its form was changed.

I personally define form as the relationship between different parts of the matter. The properties, the nature of the object, can be thought of as the matter: after all, we can't say that there are two things: the electron and its properties; the properties of the electron are electron. But then again, they can also be though of as the form: if all we care about is the charge of an amino acid, even if a point mutation in a gene replaced amino acid A with amino acid B, as long as the function that it plays in the protein (due to its charge) is unaffected, the protein will still fold normally; so, we've replaced the matter, but retained the form, which means that the key property of the amino acid that we cared about could be identified as its form.

In order to see in detail the discussion of form and matter as it pertains to brain and soul, in the context of Jewish sources, please read the posts. I would like to quote this bit:

[W]e can say the soul is therefore the pattern which the brain fits, encoded in the layout and attributes of its neurons, neurochamicals, glial cells, etc… This doesn’t mean the soul is only the pattern, or that the soul has no existence without the brain. The soul is the same thing, as substantiated in a higher world, one in which there is no need for a physical instantiation. The two are in sync in the same way a movie picture changes as the light from the projector flickers in its different colors.

Thus the mind is a product of the design and structure of the brain while simultaneously being a spiritual thing, our connection to a higher plane.

(See also this post, briefly.)

Now, Rabbi Berger says that he is a Litvishe Mikubol and thus doesn't subscribe to all ideas of Chassidus Chabad, but I was wondering if I can apply his model to the struggle between Nefesh Elokis and Nefesh Ha'Bahamis as described in Tanya.

According to Tanya, the two souls (G-dly and animalistic) fight over control of the brain. Each one wants to be the one "enclothed" in it. So, for instance, we can say that when I was sixteen years old, not religious and eating lobsters, my brain was controlled by my Nefesh Ha'Bahamis. When I turned seventeen and became religious and started going to shull (and stopped eating lobsters), but brain started to be controlled by my Nefesh Elokis.

Well, if an atheist Neuroscientist hears this, he will scoff. It's not like, he will say, my brain was plugged into an iPhone when I was sixteen, and then was plugged into Android when I was seventeen. The internal structure of my brain changed! Due to a number of outside influences (charismatic rabbi, his wife's chip salad, certain propaganda literature, certain conversations), some connections in my brain (e.g., in the circuits responsible for lobster-eating behavior) weakened or even became associated with negative emotions, while other connections (e.g., in the shull-going circuits) strengthened.

If you consider Rabbi Berger's model, however, the Neuroscientist's view does not contradict the concept of one soul being enclothed in my brain vs. another.

Remember, according to the model, hislabshus (enclothment) of the soul in the brain happens through the brain's tzurah (form). Perhaps we can even say that the brain's tzurah is the soul's hislabshus in the brain's chomer (matter). [See again the first post linked above.]

Yes, the brain's tzurah changed, as the Neuroscientist above tells us. But that is exactly what it means that one soul vs. another gained the control. The change in the brain circuits from lobster-eating to shull-going is (evidence of) the change in hislabshus of one soul vs. another in the chomer of the brain.


(What I am trying to understand at the moment is what the specific nature of hislabshus of neshama in moach might be, according to the model and according to sources in Kabbala and Chassidus. To be continued, iyH. Any comments, especially with sources, are welcome.)

Probability, causality and Harry Potter

I have two questions, answers to which I do not yet know. So, I thought I’d ask them and see what people answer either in comments or in private communication. Also, even if you don’t know the answer, it’s interesting to think about these questions.

The first question is from Math; the second is from theology/philosophy.

First question:

I have a set of N elements. Each element can make a decision in favor of A or against it. The probability of each element making decision is given as P(A). If enough elements make decision A, the set will make decision A. If not, it won’t. The proportion of elements necessary to make a decision is given as R. I want to define P(S), the probability of the set making decision A, in terms of N, P(A) and R.

For example: In a parliament of 100 members, at least 75 members have to vote "yes" for a law to pass. The probability of each member voting "yes" on the given law is 30%. What’s the probability that the parliament will vote "yes" on the law? In this problem, N = 100, P(A) = 0.3, and R = 0.75, and we need to find P(S).

(source)


Second question:

According to David Hume, there is a fundamental problem in our understanding of the world. We define "nature" as a series of causes and effects. But what does causality mean? When we say that A causes B, what exactly do we mean? It seems that we mean that A must necessarily lead to B. But if we try to explain the nature of causality, we can do two things:

1) Say that due to its properties, A always leads to B. I.e., say: “What do you mean, what is the relationship between A and B that results in A causing B? The relationship is that whenever A happens, B necessarily happens.” But this doesn’t really explain why or how it is that A results in B; it just means that in our observation, A has always been followed by B. But why does this mean that A necessarily leads to B? Maybe A leading to C (or remaining A) is a low-probability event that has never been observed? In that case, A can be said to be highly correlated with B, but not be its “necessary cause”.

2) Define A in terms of a number of sub-events and do the same with B. So, say that A really consists of A(1) and A(2) and A(3) which lead, respectively, to B(1), B(2) and B(3), which comprise B. But then, we are back to the original question: what does it mean that A(n) leads to B(n)? We haven’t really explained the causality, we just increased the power of our microscope and zoomed in.

So, if you read a little more David Hume and think about it yourself, it doesn’t seem that we have a satisfactory answer to the question “What exactly does it mean that A necessitates B?” All our answers will either involve defining the causal relationship of A and B in terms of sub-relationships of their elements, or saying that A and B are strongly correlated as per our observations. But correlation, as everyone knows, is not causation. At least, it shouldn’t be. [This paragraph wasn’t in the post originally, but I realized that just because my explanation of David Hume’s problem with causality makes sense to me, it doesn’t mean it makes sense to everyone. For a better treatment of the problem, listen to this lecture by Rabbi Gottlieb.]

Philosophers have argued whether Hume really thought that “causation is reducible to pure regularity” (source) or not, but that’s not really interesting to me.

What is interesting is that in the 20th century, scientists have discovered Quantum Mechanics, which postulates that if you go “turtles all the way down”, to the level of sub-atomic particles, the microscopic events cannot be said to cause each other with absolute certainty. They are at most bound by a probability. So, A cannot be said anymore to lead to B with 100% certainty. It has a probabilistic relationship with B — and with a number of other outcomes, all of which comprise A’s “probability cloud”.

The reason why in the macroscopic world, we observe things as seemingly causing each other is that microscopic probabilities "pile up", such that even though it is probable that one day you’ll let go of an apple, and it will float upwards, the chance of that happening is so low that you’d have to wait for a whole bunch of lifetimes of the Universe before you observe it. So, yes, causality is regularity, but a very-very strong regularity. (So, ice dissolving in a hot bath is still a law of physics, but it is a probabilistic law. Then again, the probability is so high that you can very well put your money on that happening.)

Now, my question is: can we really have such concepts as “nature” and “miracles”?

To explain:

We could say that either G-d created the laws of nature and let the world run its course (sometimes interfering in a miraculous way) or that He creates every single instance of the world.

I will address the first possibility very briefly. Or, rather, I will quote Rabbi Gottlieb (who is quoting Rav Dessler): “If all you can tell me about cause-and-effect is that ‘it always happens’, and you agree that G-d is the source of the world, aren’t you left with the idea that He makes every single thing happen directly?” (If you don’t follow the logic, keep reading.)


But, according to our tradition, Hashem creates the world every single instance of time. So, that’s not a big chiddush. One could still say that most of the time, He creates the world according to a pattern that He set up Himself (and such events are defined as “natural”), and in other times, He makes an exception to that pattern (i.e., making “miracles”).

So, we can define two modes of Hashem’s relationship with the world: a “natural” one, whereby He creates the world according to a pattern, and a “miraculous” one, whereby He creates [an aspect of] the world outside the pattern.

But then, let’s go back to our question of causality.

Before, when we believed in such a concept as A leading inevitably to B, we could say that whenever A → B happens, that’s nature, and whenever A → *** happens, that’s a miracle. But now that our conception of inevitable relationship between A and B has collapsed and been replaced with “when A happens, it leads to B with high probability”, how do we differentiate between a natural event and a miraculous one? Should we set an arbitrary cut-off point in probability of the event happening, where higher than this probability is “nature” and lower is a “miracle”?

Furthermore, before, we could say that certain events happen by hashgacha klalis, general Providence of G-d, i.e., they come from G-d, but rather “automatically”, according to a pattern He set up, and some happen by hashgacha protis, specific Providence, with His “personal attention”. The natural events’ outcome was “certain”, their nature sealed and pre-ordained by G-d. The miraculous events’ outcomes, however, required G-d’s individual decision which differed from moment to moment. (And I mean here exactly the same event, under exactly same conditions.)

But now that we know that every time A happens, its outcome must pass through a “purple fuzz” of probability (as Rabbi Gottlieb calls it), should we not say that every event demands personal attention from G-d, since its outcome is not sealed at all?

To put it in a different way: before, when we believed in causality, we could say that each event could either find a cause in another event (in this case it was deemed “natural”), or it could be said to have no cause in the world (according to the “laws of nature”), in which case it was happening ex nihilo (by definition) and was “miraculous”.

But now, with every event not really having a cause and only having a certain correlation with another event preceding it in time, all events are happening ex nihilo! All events have to be said to stem from G-d, in a “miraculous”, hashgacha-protisdik way!


Reading this sicho, we discover:

[T]here is a difference of opinion between the approach of the Rambam (and the others who follow the approach of Chakirah, Jewish metaphysics) and the Baal Shem Tov. 

According to the Rambam, G‑d’s involvement in the particulars of the future of any being other than the righteous is “passive”. He has created the natural order, and He has deemed that the natural order control the fate of these entities. 

In contrast, according to the Baal Shem Tov, every element of existence and every slight change that occurs regarding it depends on G‑d’s will and desire, as it is written: “I will conceal My face.” The intent is that only the inner (p’nimiyus) expression of His providence is hidden. Thus a person can convince himself that his difficulties “find him”, that they are part of the natural order or a function of circumstance. In truth, however, every aspect [of his life] is being controlled by Divine providence.

Regarding consciousness

Saying: "Neuroscience cannot explain consciousness" is a little unfair. Yet.

I'll explain why.

First of all, neuroscientists are trying. And haven't been for so long. I.e., Neuroscience still hasn't explained schizophrenia or the role of DNA methylation in adult neurons, but nobody claims that it cannot.

But much more importantly, imagine that Magellan is circumventing the world. He has been given instructions to visit South America, and India, and the mythical land of Australia, and South Africa and the island of Chupacamba.

He comes back and reports not having found the latter. Now: it could be that he sailed right past it in the fog. It could be he received wrong directions. It could be he poshut didn't know how to find it. Or maybe it's difficult to reach, like the North Pole.

Or it could be that the island of Chupacamba doesn't exist.

All of those are fair explanations.

But if Magellan said that in the course of his journey he has not been to the other side of the moon, all of the above assumptions are off the table. Why? Because we didn't expect him to be able to to reach the moon on a ship with sails! It doesn't mean the other side of the moon does not exist.

(The moshol is imperfect. Moon/island existing = consciousness being a brain process.)

For instance, the physiological process accounting for being able to sense dead people or, say, sense magnetic field, is within the reach of Neuroscience. Lobsters have it (both of those abilities). If people claimed such an ability, and Neuroscience (after very-very numerous, long, and careful attempts) couldn't find any basis for such an ability in the brain, that would be interesting...

Libertarianism in parenting

(Warning: the poem read at the beginning has swear-words in it. Just the poem; no swear-words in the interview.)



Whether or not you agree with everything said (I agree with a lot, but not everything), one thing is true: a group that does not produce a lot of offspring does not survive. Hear that, Europe? Or, as I once said to Rabbi Posner (a father of twelve kids) when talking about the Hareidi-MO machloikes: "If they can't convince them, they'll out-breed them".

Not to mention that each child is a blessing.

By the way, my wife didn't get the context of the interview fully, so I will explain it for the audience. Libertarians believe in the concept of non-violence. That is the basis for their political beliefs (they don't hate taking money from the rich to give it to the poor just because it's a stupid economic and sociological policy, but also because it's an act of violence), for their social beliefs, for their educational beliefs and, apparently, for their ideas in parenting.

So, for instance, my wife told me of someone who found about the areas that her kids were not interested in and forced them to excel specifically in those areas, arguing that that would develop them as much as possible, teach them discipline, willpower and going against the current. Whether or not I would agree with this approach (probably not, even though I believe in encouraging one's kids to do such things in certain areas of life, more micro than macro), Libertarians certainly would not.

Soon, in all airports

A really funny Russian clip, in which fiction is mixed with reality. Famous actors are trying to leave Russia to go on vacation to Turkey. But, all modes of travel are blocked off. Russian airports are closed, with charter flights cancelled by the "Ministry of Travel". Russian railways cannot accommodate all the travelers. GAI (Russian traffic-control police) is interfering with travel by car. And so on.

Scene from movies are interspersed with scenes from real life.



The clip ends with: "Soon, in all airports".

Meanwhile, Russia is working hard to maintain its international image of real-life Mordor (I think Iran is runner-up):



(source)

I think even Tolkien’s Uruk-hai would seem as High Elves when put side-by-side with Russian cops and politicians, working hard to maintain the thousand-year feudal regime (as everyone knows, the answer to the question of "Why did it take so long for Russia to abolish serfdom?" is: Russian people care about traditions):

Down Russian rivers

Artemiy Lebedev is continuing his journey down Russian rivers. I assume you're not interested in the clip where he went swimming in the shallow waters, and his boat got a part of its engine damaged (afterwards, they spent long time hypothesizing which part it might be, took it apart, realized it was a safety mechanism, and were happy).

This episode, however, I find interesting. I call it the Hellholes of Russia. I am posting the most interesting clip first.

Uchma, or "If you think this museum is bizarre, you should've seen the reality" (also, Karl Marx transformed into a medieval hero):

Myshkin, or "Meeting a woman with verbal diarrhea" ("We have fishing mafia — Five Families that control the fishing of Myshkin Volga. Our fish is the tastiest. Also, the most expensive."):

Kalyazin, or "Reminds me of Pripyat', except there are more ticks there..." (at the beginning of the clip, you see a tower in the middle of a lake, which is the Mage Circle Tower featured in Dragon Age: Origins):

How Russians look when hungover:

Hidden and revealed

Everything hidden eventually becomes revealed

— A Russian proverb (warning against lying)

I was thinking this morning about how counter-intuitive the idea of a gene, the basic concept of modern genetics, may seem to someone who encounters it first (or, for instance, to those who encountered this concept when the results of Gregor Mendel's experiments were publicized).

It is intuitive, just from observation, that many aspects of our appearance and behavior are passed to us from our parents (in fact, it's less intuitive that many factors are not genetically determined, or are not solely genetically determined; for instance, how tall or smart one is might be determined as much by the environment as by genes). I look a bit like my mom and a bit like my dad. Both my mom and my dad have nose and eyebrows and chins and eyes, and it makes sense that I should received the information about how to build those parts of me from either of the parents or both.

But my mother, for instance, does not have facial hair. My father does not have certain aspects of female anatomy. Therefore, it seems more intuitive that I should inherit my facial hair (and other primary and secondary male dimorphisms) from my father, and my sister should inherit the female aspects of her anatomy from my mother. How can I inherit anything pertaining to my facial hair from my mom if she doesn't have facial hair herself?

(a particularly striking example of sexual dimorphism — a difference between male and female anatomy; I assume the male is called "parasitic" as a zoological, not socio-political, statement; [source])

In reality, of course, we learn that our appearance is not directly inherited from our parents. My father's beard did not somehow split of and become my beard. There is a hidden layer of reality called genetics (the fact that genes are transmitted through DNA is not relevant; the point is that there is some level of human body's reality that is not immediately visible) that determines the body's appearance and function. It is that level that is passed on.

So, in reality, it is not my father's beard that "causes" my beard. But my father's genes cause his beard; my father's genes cause my genes (by being copied into the egg from which I came), and my genes cause my beard (the influence of the environment notwithstanding).

From this point of view, it makes sense that I can inherit my beard from my mom, so to speak. Because she can have genes for facial hair; just that due to the influence of other genes, these genes are not expressed, remaining "hidden".

* * *

We can apply this idea to Chassidus and to our everyday life with an extremely profound effect on our appreciation of reality.

Sometimes we see connections between events in our life. But in reality, the connection may not be between the physical events themselves, but between their spiritual "causes" — and sometimes, the relationship between the spiritual causes may be very complex, with some of its aspects completely hidden from our appreciation.

Thus, just like people before Gregor Mendel may have thought that I inherit my beard solely from my father, we may think that event A may have been solely caused by event B. Or, for instance, success in business only depends on how much one invests himself in it, not (also) on how hard one davvens.

Furthermore, sometimes the spiritual events may be completely hidden. Something in our life can be to our benefit or detriment, chv"sh, with no immediate effect on our revealed reality. Sometimes the effects may "skip a generation" (or a number of them), which could mean in terms of parents — children — (great-) grandchildren, or even in terms of different gilgulim of the same neshamo, or a pair of neshamos (i.e., perhaps a relationship between two people in their current life is just another chapter in a story that spans a few generations of their gilgulim). I am not just talking about husband and wife; the same may be true for, lehavdil, a murderer and a victim (r"l).

Thinking about the above will not directly answer any questions, of course. But it may have ramifications on our hypothesizing about possible answers to difficult questions. Why do bad things happen to good (or completely innocent) people? Why do infants die? Why are we sometimes lucky, and sometimes unlucky? Why do some Halachic rulings (even in the areas of mishpotim) make little sense? Will eating or not eating "cholov-stam" ice cream really have an effect on anything? And so on...

On a more intellectual level, appreciation of (sometimes hidden) relationship between the spiritual and the physical may instill some humility into those who study the physical (for a living or in passing).

Cause-and-effect vs. epiphenomena

Some people seem to confuse these concepts.

Cause-and-effect statement: My wife and I came to Rabinowitzes. The children were happy.

What I am saying is that children were happy as a result of my wife and me visiting them. One event led to another, with two events being completely separate.

Epiphenomenological statement: My wife and I helped out with the children. She played with the girls; I played with the boys.

In here, the second statement is the same as the first statement; it just provides more details. The two of us helping out with children and my wife playing with girls are not two separate events.

Now, let's see if we can give some examples of the two statements from science.

(1) The faster the molecules of air in the room move, the greater the room's temperature. 

(2) If you heat up the reaction, the beaker will explode.

In the first statement, I am not saying that change in temperature (and by that I mean an objective property of the room's air, not my perception) is caused by the change in molecules' velocity. A leads to B. No, what I am saying is that "temperature" is the same phenomenon as "molecules' movement" (more or less). The more movement, the more temperature, because they are two different ways of describing the same phenomenon.

In the second statement, I am saying that one event (supplying thermal energy to a reaction) will lead to another event (explosion of the beaker). The two events are not the same. There is, therefore, a causal relationship between them.

Now, let's see if we can guess which of the two statements the following are:

Friction is a result of interaction of the molecules of two surfaces.

Doing a mitzva increases oiros and keilim in Atzilus.