take two on the snow day
Okay, let me attempt to clarify (i know i have a tendency towards ambiguity) As someone who cannot see things in black and white, i cannot explain why i am drawn to black and white... drawings, photographs... maybe it's the comfort, the superficial calm that the illusion represents.It's all around us, and yet it is an interior wallpaper, one that cannot extend beyond the decor of our own minds...it is the ink on this clean page, the wet footprints on the retreating white sand, it is the terminology used to identify he that is "chassidic" and he that is "not"....
There is an ancient Chinese proverb (and I have no clue of its source, only that it's in my head) "Knowing the white, keeping the black, and the illumination of spirit will come". Seems somewhat remeniscent of the ying-yang theory....and somehow our own mentality. Black and white seems to represent everything that is "right" and is "wrong".
Okay, now to ground my "abstraction" into reality. Black and White, is that the true photographic image of reality? Now, i know that if i say that wearing the Chabad uniform does not classify you as a true member of the movement, i will probably be misinterpeted. So taking the risk here, I'm going to say, that there is a world beyond black and white garb, meaning, that (and this goes for the female equivalent as well) "walking the line" is not the end of the line itself. Okay, so to further explain this colorful rhetoric. If we can claim that Chassidus is about process, not product, then we can argue that wearing the black and white does not NECESSARILY acknowledge process over product. It is not the answer to the everpresent Question-
So my thought here was, Reality does not exist in terms of black and white, that much is obvious (otherwise what are the colors doing here?) Black and White is an ideal situation, morally based, theologically constructed, and even a product of human idealism. The World of Black and White is an ideal one, not a realistic one. See, this argument is way more simplistic then you think...
I've wondered on every clean sheet of paper, in every snowflake that touches the inky pavement... I've wondered why we crave a world of black and white? A world that has never existed and never will.... Why are we always running in pursuit of a picture that lacks the vitality of color? [And here, color is not that which divides our vision of goodness and kindness, it is not an excuse to an unending spectrum of religious or personal justifications, simply it is the all-encompassing reality that binds who we are and what we are aiming to accomplish]. Why are we looking to retreat into that which conceals the cars on my block, and gives you nothing but the stark nakedness of endless Whiteness contrasted with endless Blackness? Why are we looking to escape into the piling mediocrity of a non-existent reality called Black and White? And even those that claim that the Torah (ink on paper) seems to dictate a black and white reality, i will have to disagree. Torah may teach of a holy ideal, a moral goal, a higher objective, but that by no means dicates a reality of Black and White (think about its not contradictory, especially thru a Chasidic interpetation) if anything it makes room to encompass, it seeks to unify the world, life, Creator and Creation. Even on a religious compass, if the world was so utterly definable in terms of black and white, why would Halachists need to argue out their interpetations in endless pages? (see black and white is not the same as "right" and "wrong".)
So if we attempt to lose ourselves in binary terms, we are running away from who we are, from the spectrum, the complexity of many colors. We don't live in Pleasantville... we live here, even tho i must admit that Kingston Avenue is far more palatable in the snow... ;)
i hope this somewhat clarifies (cheers to the Chabad.org poster ;) and D. stop politicizing everything i say- contrary to what most people argue, to me, not everything is so political)
and now i gtg do my homework and have some time to enjoy my snow day.
by the way- my snow boots are black and white polka dots ;)
posted by HindiK at 12:14 AM
19 Comments:
Sure, when you speak in abstract terms colorful seems more real than "the binary simplicity" of black and white. But when you break it down to the particulars, many things actually are black and white. there is no reason to complicate things that are otherwise simple! Which isn't to say that everything is simple; just the stuff that is simple should be kept so. And by the way, humanity and its motives can be shockingly simple.
In the typical fashion of leftist intellectuals, your writing consists of many-syalabled adjectives strung together to form an absolute nothingness. You avoid any facts and examples, which you would then have to defend. So you keep it abstract and vague. For the first time since I have visited this blog, I thought maybe you were touching on something real and concrete when you mentioned the whole chasidish/non-chassidish thing, but imagine my disappointment when you don’t follow through and anchor yourself. Again, you are higher than reproach because in the world of adjectives, everything passes, and nothing is debatable. You would be a great speechwriter for Ahmadinejad.
Hindi, much better. But still....
There is no limit to the possibilities of oversimplification. We can make everything into a black and white issue. But our wiser reflex shouldn't to jump straight into the grey... sure, people who define people by their clothes only are idiots. And sure, the process is more important than the product, but that, too, is a binary realm, as one is either improving, or not.
I am reminded of a story about two chasidic "Rebbelach" who were invited to a "kiruv" shabbaton. One of the Rebbelach complained to his colleague that a woman there had sleeves above her elbows, and apparently, the whole kiruv business doesn't work! The other Rebbele (who obviously was a bit wiser) replied that he shouldn't look at where her sleeves are today, but what matters is in which direction they are going: Yesterday she was wearing sleeveless shirts, and tomorrow she'll be wearing tzniusdike shirts.
But even if the woman can be praised for wearing shirts that are not yet tznius, still, she fits into the world of "good". True, we had to redefine "good" for her, but ultimately, her grey is our white because of context and maturity. Ultimately, however, the sleeve can go only in two directions, and our world has only two dimensions. How to define those dimension requires maturity. But to throw them away displays serious lack of responsibility.
Color does not effect the shape of things. It is only the variety in perception.
The dos and don'ts are not subject to change, the item in question is the human experience.
While davening is about a personal relationship, we all use the same (basic) text.
Though music is the quill of the soul, we are more inspired (in an individual way) by professional music, than our own.
At "Krias yam suf" everyone was inspired, and expressed their personal gratitude in the shira, but sang the same words (acc. to opinion #3.)
So you try again... But you avoid the real question: Are colors really colors, or are they shades of black and white? (And let's not get lost talking about colors. I”m talking about the nimshal...)
Why isn't black and white the same as right or wrong? It, too, is a "binary" approach to the world.
About the unity in chasidus, I suggest you look at your sources: In chasidus everything has one source: Atzmus. But after the whole seder hishtalshlus, everything in the world belongs to ONE of TWO world: Kedusha, or klipah. sure, there are klippas that can be transformed, and many shades of the klipah, but ultimately, the world is very "binary". Good vs. bad, right vs. wrong. It's in nigleh and nistar. And common sense.
By the way, I'm not politicizing a thing: Politics is the application of philosophy. Your philosophy is the philosophy of the left, regardless if you notice it or not.
Deep post.
I always thought that the black and “white world” fantasy existed because than we would have more control, we would feel safer.
In a world like that no one would try to justify inexcusable behavior with childhood traumas and the like.
see pragmatician- that's my going theory why Pleasantville is black and white...
and colorblind-
i think you actually proved my point with your argument.
"In chasidus everything has one source: Atzmus...there are klippas that can be transformed, and many shades of the klipah"
and even besides that: doesn't Gd relate to the world thru various Sephirot [that have colors too by the way] or we everything either in camp x or y?
everything is part of a wide spectrum of many levels, levels that all reflect upon the Oneness that is around us...just as you so eloquently said. That is also actually the core difference between Judaism and Christianity. We believe in the One, they believe in the Many. There is only One, but yes, It does appear in many colors, many manifestations, many gradation...
You misunderstood me. Everything has One source. But in this world everything is divided into two camps only: Good and evil! Now, sefiros have nothing to do with good or evil. they are forms of relating to the objects of good or evil. And for your info, the way to elevate the shalosh klippos hatmeim is to abstain from them! Evil is evil and good is good, regardless of their sources. Your perspective was the mistake of shabbtai tzvi and his camp. Careful where you walk...
hey hin-
happy v-day
and to you colorblind-
you must be blind in general if you think hindi remotely resembles a terrorist... [terrifying at times but not a terrorist]
and now as a islamic terrorist and a messianic heretic i think that you should reconsider your position- as you in all your esteemed objectivity can use a renewal of multi-perspective approach to life more than most people... infuse some difference and you might find it to be quite beneficial for your life style...
believe it or not both of those people that you mentioned had a vision of life too [i'm not justifying if they were correct or not, but you should try to understand that not everyone sees life the way you do].
I am impressed by the proficiency in Chasidus, (lehavdil) Christianity, and Shabtai Tzvism expressed by all the commenters here.
There is one right and everything else is wrong.
When we are uncomfortable with it, we create mediocre levels of observance etc. and justify them by calling them colors.
Regardless of where the person is holding presently, the ideal truth does not change. (For example, shluchim don't have to be ashamed that they don't dress like their mekuravim.)
"Truth" by definition means that anything else is NOT true.
Hindi, I would like to apologize for all those nasty comparrisons. Please forgive me.
However, I still stand by my original position that our world is only 2 dimensional. And if you disagree, feel free to disagree, but don't use chasiduss as your source, because chasidus makes it clear that everything in our world belongs in one of two camps, and whatever isn't in those camps yet (klipas nogah) will evenually land in one of them depending on how we relate to them. So for the meantime they are suspended between klippah and kedusha, but once they come into contact with our word they are immediately defined and catagorized. In oher words, human action is completely two dimensional.
Again, my sencerest apologies.
forget this-
this whole conversation got completely off centered, it was not meant to be a discussion on moral truth vs. T.
this was the sole idea:
it is never wise to take on one way of seeing the world and assume that it provides a picture of what the world is really like... even shluchim must gain multiple perspectives in order to relate to their congregants....
i was also aiming towards a dialectical argument [Hegelian]
its fine, good discussion anyway
i got to go make snow balls with my students.
in your march down hegelian dialectic lane, are these your stops:
thesis- B & W
antithesis- Colors
synthesis- what is your synthesis, other than a reiteraiton of antithesis?
im missing something
that's actually a more marxian view of the dialectical argument [think dialectical materialism]-
okay, granted that Hegel's theory was an ideal abstraction [which is why we thankfully had marx to exchange labour with the German 'gheist' or spirit] and granted that this little nothing about snow was not really set up in any philosophical argument- i just thought maybe the Black and White discussion would lead to it.
oh-
and here's kinda what i meant:
each part of the dialectical process is a contradiction to the part before [history must degenerate in order to regenerate etc. etc.]
problem with the philosophical formula you set up: Hegel believed that everything is inherent and implicit- the model you presented simply implies that the 'contradictions' and 'negations' are outwardly imposed on the model...
hindy-
glad to see you are listening in class.
uncle joe would be really proud.
workers of the world unite
lol
:)
ha. i wonder how uncle joe's date went?
;)
i'm always listenting...
i'd say i'm always watching... but i don't know if i'm that coordinated besides it's a little freaky.
good question.
i have to think about it some...
it sounds like you're confusing the hegelian dialectics with the socratic dialectics.
hegelian isnt a steady degeneration, or progression. each model is its own unit.
socratic is a steady progression.
i dont know what the marx/german thing is about- i never learnt that, sorry.
even if something is implicit, it would still be able to be identified, and that perforce wouldnt deem it superimposed.
ponce de leon-
the dialectical argument of socrates is answering a question with a question until the orignal proposer ends up refuting his own original statement.
[works for some jews too]
how do i always end up playing intellectual volley ball with you??
;)
you win- i dont know enough about the dialectics.
i looked it up, my understanding of the socratic method was wrong.
volleyball? i was thinking tackle football.
Post a Comment
<< Home