The Chessed Bubble Of Existence
This muse is concerning the manifestation of the Creation between 0 and 1 – existence and non-existence, or in philosophical axiomatic language; truth and falsity. The Torah maintains and teaches us that G_d’s essence is primarily echad (one), and further than that; a one beyond all ones, totally alone and whole without any deficiency implying need and proscribing any division whatsoever. Mathematically this is demonstrated in the simple notation of 1/1=1 which could be rephrased as ‘something’ divided by ‘something’ is ‘something’ and conversely with a zero, which signifies ‘no-thing’. This fundamental whilst simple holds the key to all that follows in the Torah as a necessity of the existence of echad, and by extension the paradox of man.
It is generally agreed that all humans are imperfect and that imperfection is a ‘constant structure’ of humanity ever since the ‘state change’ occurring in gan Eden. We will look closely at this state in what follows, but for the moment it is sufficient to state that the human being exists between ‘creation’ and ‘destruction’ between one and zero, and that this ‘state’ was the result of a schism mediated by ‘choice’ in the fabric of ‘echad’ that operated in the paradisiacal state we label as a ‘garden’ in Eden.
I am trying to avoid Kabbalistic terminology in this exegesis, but the Lurianic metaphors of ‘Adam Kadmon’ and ‘Adam HaRishon’ provide us with a pluralistic metaphors describing ‘the creation of humanity’. The choice did not mediate a change in a ‘singular Adam’- ie Adam was ‘destroyed’ in the choice to be replaced by a new creation Adam HaRishon if you will, that had no past. This lack of past provides ‘logical’ support for the lack of responsibility for Adams ‘sin’(see below) in Judaistic theology as opposed to Christianity which maintains a guilt, operative over all its adherents for this ‘original sin’.
Not a Sin
The word for sin does not occur in the Torah until it is applied to Cain, this re-emphasises the logical implications we have established in the previous paragraph, indeed the term ‘original sin’ was not invented until the 2nd century CE by Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons, famous heresiologist, and ‘defender’ of orthodox Roman Christianity. Adam HaRishon had no past, he was ‘created’ at the point of decision, mediated by a confrontation with ‘possibility’ – in his ‘creation’ Adam had manifested a behira point (to borrow from R. Dessler) a structural ‘anchor point that advances the inner development of a person and radically alters the internal mapping of the ‘soul’, without any ethical overtones, just a re-creation from the decision point onward. Effectively this ‘free-will’ in the choice itself is the nature of teshuvah, it is a radical restructuring of the person that leads to new horizons of ‘creational’ possibilities. Therefore, for Adam Kadmon the decision point destroyed him and ‘created’ Adam haRishon who was ‘dual’ – previously being male and female back to back. With no past there is no sin since the ‘sinner’ (if that be the terminology we wish to use) has been destroyed (I am aware that many will refute my idea here in the basis that woman was the recipient of the fruit and that she confronted the Serpent first, but the Torah is not linear and time is a thing of the future for the state of ‘echad’ so before after do not operate ‘pre-choice’ so-to-speak and therefore, in my opinion, the objection is specious). An echo of this can be seen in the famous case of Sarah laughing. At the promise of the miracle that Sarah in old age will give birth we are told that she laughed, which is puzzling for such a righteous figure as Sarah, but it points to an underlying fundamental – the change of name from Sarai to Sarah – so who laughed? Indeed as opposed to Abram her name is changed rather than added too, in my opinion further emphasising the duality in Sarah/Sarai at the moment of the ‘castigation’ from the angel ‘why do you laugh’ – Sarai being destroyed at the utterance from Sarah “I” did not laugh!
What's in a name
This ‘name’ changing points to ‘re-creation and change at the ‘acceptance’ of the ‘name’ which is itself a ‘choice’ not a ‘sin’. We’re obligated by the maxim of free will that Sarah had a choice to accept or not her new self, and that the confrontation with the Angel is similar to the confrontation with the ‘Serpent’, effectively it is the point of acceptance of “I AM” and this points us to a somewhat surprising echo, for the Torah enshrines one and only one name for G_d and that is ‘I AM’ This ‘I AM’ uttered by Hashem is the only true ‘I AM’ for without the ‘datum point’ of ‘I AM’ no ‘choice’ is possible; what possible choice can there be between 0’s? – 0+0=0, 0-0=0, 0x0=0, except for 0/0 – what can this be? Before we answer that lets look at 1 – 1x1=1, 1/1=1, 1-1=0 and 1+1=2 – a new creation hence the generative possibility of the “echad” – create two and you create possibility in the infinite (small aleph) of the natural number set.
An Excursus on 0/0
I am not going to pause here with a lengthy mathematical investigation of this subject, but rather point out its fundamental and paradoxical underpinning that points us to a mystery of the ‘I AM’ itself. Fundamentally division by 0 is an indeterminate value which was defined in the earliest exposition of the subject we know as:-
“…A positive or negative number when divided by zero is a fraction with the zero as denominator. Zero divided by a negative or positive number is either zero or is expressed as a fraction with zero as numerator and the finite quantity as denominator. Zero divided by zero is zero.” Brahmasphutasiddhanta of Brahmagupta (598–668)
Modern mathematics has established division by 0 as indeterminate, and has given rise to many useful ways of mathematical thinking that, although fascinating do not concern this superficial speculation.
We are confronted here, in my opinion, with the fundamental ‘non-truth’ of ‘no-thing’, even our computers necessitate in order to provide ‘sensical’, ‘well defined results’ have to postulate a ‘signed zero’ or indeed a NaN( ‘Not a number’ )in order for ‘basic’ mathematical operations to produce ‘intelligible’ results! Theological language gives us a clue, however; in that if one = True, then 0 = False and it is this ‘falsity which haunts us in the vacated space of the zero – the Tzimtzum – the separation of what I will call the ‘Chessed Bubble’ or the ‘creational Shabbath’ as state of ‘falsity’ – frozen in decision between 1 and 0.
Tzimtzum
The Tzimtzum according to Lurianic Kabbalah is the contraction that results in the ‘removal’ of G_d’s light in order for ‘independent’ or ‘separate’ existence to be possible. This contraction is a logical requirement, necessitated by the concept of G_d as ‘echad’ this oneness is alone because one by necessity is all, it is the fundamental ‘necessity’ or ‘datum point’ that structures all of existence , and in the notion that it is THE ALL it precludes the ‘possibility’ of two, and therefore existence is nullified in its presence, or as the Kabbalists put it ‘drowned in G_d’s infinite light’. So this structural metaphor postulates a ‘bubble’ or ‘container’ or ‘womb’ that G_d created out of ‘no-thing’ to provide a nurturing state for ‘choice’. This ‘creation from ‘no-thing’ is lurking around the mystery of 0/0 which is still present in our mathematics like a ‘background’ radiation pointing to an original and only ‘true’ ‘big bang’, or in this case a tear(or tear as a poetic metaphor for the droplet in the tears of G_d and they could be many as in the multiverse idea which still hangs in the balance depending on the mass of the Higgs Boson – though I shudder at the implicated anthropomorphism) in the ‘logic of echad.
This ‘contraction’ as described in the texts is paradoxical in that you would expect this to be an expansion of a ‘space’ of THE space but the Kabbalaists are inferring here to the mathematical logic of the underpinning idea. If 1 is truth and 0 is falsity we are confronted with ‘singular’ or ‘many’ – there is only one truth but falsity is legion – 1 is finite in substance but infinite in essence whereas zero is infinite in form but finite in essence, because it stands for the finite notion of ‘termination’ or ‘no thing’ – falsity, if perpetuated causes a structural collapse of ‘truth’ due to constant division by zero. A falsity debated (or divided) can only result in further falsity, whereas a truth divided (or debated) will always yield truth, unless a falsity is included as a contaminant – hence the unique creation of Torah exegesis and debate conducted for centuries by the children of Israel, and the restriction of neither adding or subtracting from the Torah.
In G_d there is no division; all is the ALL, and, therefore the zero or non-existence is the result of the Tzimtzum a contraction from ‘pure’ echad towards the ‘many’ or infinity, this state does not include the ‘purity’ of ‘echad’ and therefore it is a place where G_d has rested and this is the Shabbath.
This may imply a division in G_d as a kind of before echad and after it – the Tzimtzum being conceived as a change of state from 1 to something not one, but that can only operate in the realm of linear existence (or change) that operates only within the Tzimtzum. 1 has no past or future it simply is and therefore the Tzimtzum exists because ‘IT IS’ it has only a past and a future if looked at from our point of view. Outside of time and linearity the Tzimtzum always was because ‘IT IS’ and unlike here, all ‘possibilities’ are ‘actualities’ for G_d. There is no deliberation in “…let there light!” it simply ‘IS’ as He is capable of stating “I AM” that “I AM” – His “I AM” is a self-recursing truth that maintains the logical position required of existence that “HE IS!”. Simply put if G_d is singular and ‘THE ALL’ the Tzimtzum can be considered to be an utterance in the ‘I AM’ that produces ‘change’ within it and changing nothing outside it. This is the reason that it has been said that “…the Torah contains all that was, is and will be” reflecting the nature of the Tzimtzum itself, a perpetuated space that has in essence no past or future, but a plurality of possible answers, or choices; in other words the only possible number that 1 can tolerate – the zero itself, the falsity that cannot touch one but can modify – everything!
This zero is the ‘possibility’ – it signifies no-thing but in its ‘place’ assignation signifies everything – it exists in binary notation to promote the one to a higher value which I think you might agree points to a metaphorical significance, that pure no-thing always points to a possibility of some-thing which is the fundamental of creational existence. Our confrontation with zero produces in us a polarity that points to something even if that is not defined, this we label as good/evil – they are inseparable and intertwined, but fundamentally the same existing only in the moment of Tzimtzum established by choice, possibility and growth through the iteration of choice. The Torah is the only guide to mediating the choice and it can only be mediated through the action of a further Tzimtzum between 1 and 0 and this is the nature of Jew/non-Jew and the ‘tether of the covenant’ which I will come to at a later time.
