Wednesday, August 03, 2005

Man I have no time now to post this, but I just wanted to say that I have no idea why Josh Corey says that jews believe the 'good' is necessarily distanced from the language one uses to describe/discuss it. Isn't Judaism the religion which believes the Torah is, literally, in the deepest mystical sense, creation itself? That, for example, god, in taking a rosh and a yud and combining them into a hay, actually created the category of 'people'? That the creation of one (the word) was no different from the creation of the other (the people)?

I suppose he might argue that jews, modern/practical incarnation, are not in line with that thinking, are opposed to it in fact; or that jews and Judaism are two separate entities/belief sets, one the aspirant/rejected of the other. I suppose. I also understand what he means in general, Judaism is often described (internally and externally) as a religion completely occupied with the here-and-now. What's-to-come is left out mostly. But when it comes to the connection of the signifier & the signified transcendant, Judaism is completely clear: the Torah is IT. The DNA of creation (if I may use a limiting simile which would send Blake spinning). However long the messiah takes, whatever tribulations are visited in the meantime.

I may be misreading his intention in the post. Like I said I have next-to-no time now. I probably should backchannel, but I'm too lazy, and here this is typed. Good night.

update: I just reread Josh's post, and actually the categorizing of Judaism as such was Grossman's. Much as I hate to say it, I think he's taking a characteristic of the long-deferred religious and overdefining them by it. So I'm arguing, above, I suppose, primarily with Grossman.

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe with Bloglines