On a practical psychological note–if a person refrains from certain types of behavior, then the question arises as to how is it possible to relate to another person for whom those behaviors do manifest. For example, let’s say that David is a clean-cut person who has never gambled in his life. For him casinos are places for see music performances only. The lotto is a waste of money, he reasons, due to his sense of mathematical probabilities. Not being a betting man (perhaps he even stays clear of the stock market), he meets Jon who is a full-blown addicted gambler. Jon would wager his last cent if opportunity called.

Now Jon realizes that his obsessive-compulsive gambling is a problem and at the same time notices that David does not suffer from the same temptation. Consequently, he approaches David and asks for advice on how to stop before he is bankrupt. In this scenario, how is it possible for David to understand where Jon is coming from? According to Kabbalah, even before empathy is aroused, there must first be some insight and understanding [themselves likened to the letters Yud-Hei in the Divine name] into the situation. In other words, our cognitive faculties allow us to explore the theoretical, to imagine doing something without doing it.

We can all try the simple thought experiment where we are able to place ourselves outside ourselves in an foreign set of circumstances and then react to this simulation. Clearly we have to reach deep into the well of our imagination, fire up the memory banks, and survey our collection of pre-existing ideas in order to construct such a simulation. More precisely, we have to find something within ourselves that resembles the matter at hand even if it operates at a much more subtile level of our psyche.

To effectively respond to Jon (who appears to have an entirely different kind of behavior which is utterly foreign), David must search inside himself to see if he can detect something similar, albeit on a more remote plane. Generally speaking, the mystical axiom states, that if something is found in external reality—in the objective world—then it must have a traceable source in our inner consciousness. It is as if to say that there is a fractal pattern which might be broadcast on a large scale in the world but which is imperceptibly worked into the background fabric of our subjective experience. David does gamble on some level. Maybe it is an incalculable risk in speaking with his son about a sensitive matter or daring a high-stakes innovative idea at work. Somewhere he should be able to find it. By virtue of this introspection, David’s ability to understand, empathize, and even counsel Jon is enhanced.

The mind plays host of our imported world and attempts to reproduce it. Part of this entails a deconstructive process–breaking things down to ascertain what they are made of. Properly reflected upon, the negative commandments of the Torah are expositions on what not to do, say or even think. Once we veer away from the concrete world of action, the nuances of the negative within thought and speech are more challenging to decode. Nonetheless, the negative as a calling attention to what is missing, beckons us and encourages further investigation.

The negative relates to a spiritual level which is referred to as ‘light which surrounds all worlds’ (ohr ha’sovev kol almim). By contrast the positive may be said to be a light that ‘fills all worlds‘ (ohr ha’mimalei kol almin). Lights are likened to experiences. ‘Surrounding lights’ therefore, imply transcendental experiences. We ‘have’ them by not having them. Grasping and not grasping. They are a consequence of going above and beyond some activity, an absence rather than an infused presence. Whereas ‘lights that fill worlds’ registers as experiences that permeate any given context. They are immanent. Given to a definable quality, these performatives make a direct impact, whereas their transcendent companion works as negativity indirectly affecting the situation. The former formalizes activities within space and time whilst the later deformalizes them.

Technical Postscript:

Pronouns are substitutes for nouns. We retain ‘representation’ all the time (not only in the legal sphere). These pronouns act ‘on behalf’ of the persons, places or things that they are standing in for. In Hebrew, ‘hu’ [Hei-Vav-Alef הוא] is “he” in English while ‘he’ [Hei-Yud-Alef היא] is the equivalent of ‘she.’ Common to both pronouns is the third letter of both these words which is Alef. Alef normally denotes Divine unity for it numerically equals one and it is a composite letter that can be thought of as having a Yud on the upper right joined to a Yud on the bottom left by a diagonal Vav that cuts down from top left to bottom right [א = י ו י] so that the numerical value of these three component letters is 26 [Yud = 10, Vav = 6, Yud 10] which is the sum of the four letters of the Divine name [Yud-Hei-Vav-Hei]. What this suggests is that Divinity is unified within both the masculine and feminine modes of being which which connote diverse meta-legalistic aspects of law.

In our previous article, we established the metaphysical correspondence between the positive and negative commandments with the masculine and feminine modes respectively. This association is further advanced by the remaining pair of letters in each of these pronouns. ‘Hu’ or ‘he’ also has a ‘Hei-Vav’ (‘Vav-Hei’ in reverse) which are the second pair of letters of the Tetragrammaton (Yud-Hei-Vav-Hei). My projection into the world, that which positively asserts itself, is the lower dyad of these four letters.

In comparison, the remaining two letters of the Tetragrammaton, Yud-Hei are both found  in the pronoun ‘he’ [which once again means ‘she’]. They are also in reverse order [Hei-Yud rather than Hei-Yud]. As the first two letters of this Divine name, they are thought of as the higher pairing, meaning that they are more abstract and interior within the framework of human subjectivity. Inflected within, they relate to the negative commandments–to the absence and withdrawal that exceeds presence and manifestation.

Thus, the pronouns ‘he’ and ‘she’ as the positive and negative commandments are both unified within themselves (with the inclusion of the Alef in each one) and join together to establish an even larger coupling which is indicative of the Divine name that designates Being or the ontological. They ultimately exhibit complementarity as a pair in that the dual descriptions are required to construct reality as whole [the Tetragrammaton can also signify Reality].

Our attention now turns to the organs, limbs, sinews and bones as we further detail legal structures and the ‘sovereign’ body in Part Five.

http://www.interinclusion.org/inspirations/the-organization-of-law-part-5/

http://www.interinclusion.org/inspirations/the-organization-of-law-part-3/

Print PDF