Skip to main content

Symbols and Realities (1)

Text file

 

     In last week's lecture we mentioned R. Samson Rafael Hirsch's presentation of the commandments as a system of symbols.  R. Kook criticizes this approach in a number of places.  R. Kook's criticism is clearly directed towards those people who treated the symbolism lightly.  However, as we shall see there are two possible meanings to symbols.  The second changes them to facts.

 

     The symbolic approach bears an affinity to Rihal's approach as well as the approach of the Kabbala.  However, it is important to emphasize the differences.  There is a fundamental difference between symbols and facts.  The difference between them is similar to the difference between a "no-entry" sign and a roadblock which makes entry impossible.  The sign is a symbol; it teaches us something, but it doesn't affect us or alter our will.  A roadblock is something tangible, real.  Of course the roadblock can be knocked down, yet despite this the roadblock is different than the sign.  This difference in essence expresses two dimensions of reality.  The sign is different than the roadblock, just as energy is different than information.

 

     A glance at any car shows us that it has two systems.  One system decides the direction of travel: the steering wheel and its various accessories.  The second system supplies energy and controls it: the gas and the brakes.  We need both systems.  Without gas we cannot move, but without a steering wheel we could drive over a cliff.

 

     Let me explain the parable.  If it is true that the commandments are symbols, then apparently all they give us is more information - information which could be obtained in another way.  However, today we know more about symbols, and this new knowledge allows us to perceive them differently.  As we shall see, symbols have a dimension of energy, and they act upon us, change our personalities, and to some extent the world as well.

 

     The concept of the commandments as messages written in symbolic language, greatly influences the Jewish philosopher Erich Fromm.  The importance of the symbol was augmented by all we have learned from modern psychology.  Man knows much more than he thinks he does.  This paradox can be explained only in the wake of the modern discovery of the subconscious layers that exist in man.  Man thinks he doesn't understand, yet something within him responds.  This modern concept is not at all new to classical Jewish thought.  The Talmud speaks of an inner layer in man, which knows and sees things which his conscious self does not recognize, which is termed his "mazal" (here mazal is used in the Talmudic, not the astrological sense).  This hidden knowledge makes its appearance not in mans philosophy but in the stories he tells on those occasions when he is completely at ease.

 

     We are familiar with many forms of such subconscious activity.  The most classic example is advertising and propaganda.  We are accustomed to thinking about messages which are directed towards our intellect, our thought and perception.  In contrast, symbols influence deeper layers of consciousness, which are no less important.  The language of symbols is a language which our intellect does not understand; yet, something within us does understand it.  In his book, "The Forgotten Language," Erich Fromm brings various examples from both the Talmud and modern psychology, which express these facts.  Thus, for example, the Talmud in tractate Berakhot informs us that dreams have no effect, either positive or negative, except in three cases.  One of these cases is when a person dreams the interpretation of a dream.  This teaches us that although the person doesn't understand his dream when conscious, when he is in an unconscious state he understands the dream so well that he can interpret it.  This means that there is something deep inside man which speaks a different language.

 

     This idea can be understood from another angle as well.  We must distinguish between allegory and symbol.  They do share characteristics, since they both stand in place of something else and describe it, but there is a fundamental difference between them.  Allegory describes things which could be formulated in a different language, a language that the intellectual side of me understands.  For example, if I relate the tale of the fox and the wolf, it is clear to me that it is an allegory, because I can interpret it and replace it, for example, with the conflict between cunning (the fox) and strength (the wolf).  In contrast, symbols point to and hint of things which I cannot formulate in my own language.  Symbols help me to understand and perceive these things.  In order to communicate an emotion, I must use a symbol.  I have no other choice.

 

     We are all familiar with one example of a creation written in a language which we do not understand, and which affects us powerfully nonetheless: music.  We do not understand how it works and yet it affects us so intensely.  In this regard music may be compared to the commandments.  Possibly music can be interpreted as symbol which describes a different reality, something that was written in a special language which has the power to express things which have no other outlet, such as the condition of the human soul.  Music becomes a mode of communication.  R. Kook suggests that music is not made up of symbols but of very special facts, which we do not understand.  In any case, a melody can affect us because it speaks to us.  Thus, the Chassidim claimed that the source of all melody is in the spiritual sanctuaries which are higher than words.

 

     The rationalists were mistaken in thinking that it is possible to speak to man in a rational, intellectual language of abstract concepts.  They did not sense the fundamental fact that a certain layer of the personality simply does not understand this conceptual language.  This is comparable to an excellent lecturer who is speaking to an audience which is not capable of understanding him.  He can speak about philosophy, mathematics, or a complex theory replete with difficult concepts in the technical terminology of differential equations.  Perhaps the lecture is true, or even practically applicable; however, the audience does not understand the terminology in it.  Thus, within man himself there are two audiences.  The rational audience hears the conceptual philosophical discourse, the ethical arguments.  But man has within him an irrational audience as well, which does not comprehend the things he is presented with, and even if he does understand them, they make no impression upon him.  How does one address this audience, an audience which has tremendous influence?

 

     However, here reality changes.  A new lecturer gets up on the stand and speaks about soccer or basketball, or other things which the intellectual elite does not understand, while the other audience understands these things perfectly.  The more sophisticated audience does not understand what the simple man understands.  Man's inner world is composed of two such audiences.  He has within him rational and sophisticated tendencies as well as irrational tendencies.  We must speak to him and influence him, but not through conceptual language.  The deep layer of his personality understands a different language, the language of symbols.  Symbolic actions which seem incomprehensible speak to the deep level of the personality, guide it and influence it.  Through this medium we speak with our soul in order to alter ourselves.

 

     If the commandments were symbols for rational things, the criticism of them would be justified.  But perhaps the commandments are not symbols for rational things.  They address a different audience.  It doesn't matter if the mind understands or not, because the commandments are not addressed to that audience.  There are two levels of irrationalism.  One level is beneath the rational, and the other is above it.

 

Consciousness and Subconsciousness

 

     It is clear to every one of us that there are unconscious abilities in man.  Let us perform a simple experiment.  We can ask whoever uses a computer which finger he uses to type the letter "s."  Of course, he will not be able to respond immediately, but he will carry out a simple exercise.  He will imagine that he is writing the word "see," for example, and move his fingers, and then he will see which finger he used.  He doesn't know with which finger he is writing and yet he can type!  Man has all kind of internal mechanisms which function automatically, mechanisms which function without our conscious awareness.  However, these are not only physical mechanisms.  These are also mechanisms of the soul.  If I wish to truly change a person, both internally and externally, I must address him in a different language.  Enter the language of the commandments.  This idea was expanded by the various branches of the Mussar movement.

 

     We are accustomed to looking up at the sky and seeing infinity spread out before us.  But we forget that infinity spreads out endlessly within us as well.  We reach into ourselves, as though into a deep sack, and take out all kinds of things, but we must remember that the border is just as far as the hand can reach.  The "sack" is much deeper than our hand can extend.  The hand is our consciousness, which does not comprehend the end and essence of our inner world.

 

     Two large Jewish movements uncovered the subconscious layers of man.  One source is in the Mussar movement, headed by R. Israel Salanter.  He attempted to solve the riddle of man through the assumption that "dark," subconscious forces are at work in man.  Another source is in the Chassidic movement, and prior to this, in the Kabbala.

 

     R. Aaron Marcus, the Jewish sage who tried to offer the philosophy of Chassidism is the language of modern philosophy, draws our attention to an cryptic passage, a kind of riddle, found in R. Chaim ben Atar's commentary, Or Ha-chayim [Lev. 17].  I will bring it here so that the reader can also attempt to interpret it.  (There are, unfortunately, a number of variations of the text, and part of the solution lies in choosing the correct version.  Therefore, I have brought the possible changes in parentheses.  When a word is missing in a certain version, I put a question mark after it.)

 

"And it will be known to the investigator of the inner essence of the understanding of knowledge, that the perception of knowledge will enlighten the intelligence and in his knowledge he will know that the knower of knowledge [?] is bereft of knowledge.  And when he shall succeed in enlightening [explaining] himself to himself, he will know that the knower is informed by a knowledge which is not informed by the intelligence ..."

 

     I will not attempt to interpret the riddle, but it clearly is written here: "knowledge bereft of knowledge."  This seems to hint at something similar to the existence of unconscious knowledge in man.  This means that he knows things that he doesn't know he knows.  This is similar to a man who thinks he has overdrawn from the bank when in fact he actually has more money than he thought he had, and this money gives him an advantage of which he is unaware.

 

     We need not necessarily depend upon this wonderful source.  In Chassidic thought we find the concept, "kadmut ha-sekhel," knowledge behind the intellect.  Thus, the Maggid of Mezritsh tells us that thought "is comprehended by the person himself, and is not comprehended by others; but the kadmut ha-sekhel is not comprehended even by the person himself."  This idea was further developed by Chabad Chassidism.

 

     R. Aaron Marcus was a Jew of Ashkenazi origin who migrated to the East, and there became a chassid.  He was a student of the tzaddik R. Shlomo of Radomsk, and was also connected with Chertekov Chassidism.  R. Marcus publicized Chassidism in the west, and wrote a book about it which was translated into Hebrew, entitled "Sefer Ha-chassidut."  Today, we know that the theories he presented regarding the identification of various authors of anonymous Kabbalistic works were incorrect; however, the book maintains its significance, though not easy to read.

 

     R. Marcus is also an important figure due to his attempt to bridge the gap between Zionism and the ultra-orthodox world.  He wrote a letter to Herzl and told him that it was very likely that Chassidism would join forces with the Zionist movement.  Unfortunately, a historical accident interfered and the match did not take place.

 

     R. Marcus also was very interested in the meaning of the new archeological discoveries in the Near East.  He viewed them as a slap in the face of the wide-ranging speculations of biblical criticism.  He also devoted much time and effort to the development of the theory of root words in the Hebrew language.  He can be defined as one of Rihal's modern successors, trying to formulate a middle road to connect Rihal's central ideas and the latest discoveries of historical and archeological research.

 

     To return to our topic; an earlier source for the idea of the subconscious is in the Talmud, in the concept of the mazal which we mentioned earlier.  The Talmudic "mazla" notes a basic element of man, which sees, remembers and knows things subconsciously, and which affect him despite his own ignorance of their existence.

 

     R. Israel Salanter spoke of the subconscious to teach us an important lesson in his Mussar thought.  He taught us to look at one of the most difficult problems of our lives: why does man recognize good, and yet he continues to do evil?  Let me give you a trivial example.  Why can't a person stick to a diet which he knows will save him from illness?  Why can't a person stop smoking, or why did he even begin this dangerous practice in the first place?  This is a philosophical question which has remained with us since the days of Aristotle and Plato.

 

     Plato naively thought that whoever recognizes the good cannot help but do it.  In other words, every sinner is misguided, as our sages say, "a person does not sin unless a spirit of foolishness enters him."  This approach is interesting, but it is not realistic.  It doesn't take into account the fact that although we know the truth, yet there is still a struggle within us.  The question remains: why does man not succeed at behaving morally, even though he knows he should?  We could blame our will power.  Aristotle indeed spoke of the weak-willed, the weak personalities who cannot resist temptation.  He thought we have a way to measure the strength of someone's personality, and that people were born with different amounts of will power.  Those whose will power is impaired cannot resist temptation.

 

     The Rambam teaches us that despite the difficulties, which differ from person to person, everyone is capable of overcoming his personality and changing it.  This is precisely the point of moral education.  R. Israel Salanter added another idea.  The reason for the moral failure, in his view, is in the fact that we are not familiar with the field of battle and the fighting forces.  Our case is similar to that of a strategic analyst who is asked about a particular war when he doesn't know the power division or the weapons which are supposed to be participating in the battle.  The classic sage giving moral advice does not understand that other forces are at work in man.  The mistake occurs when we think that if we understand the rational sides, we will understand man.

 

     Moral education and self education must touch our subconscious as well as our conscious selves.  We do not understand that we educate through the use of all kinds of conscious and unconscious symbols.  We know today, for example, that we educate people through television, or other means such as advertisements, in an indirect way, without the people's knowing what is happening, which leaves them all the more open and vulnerable to these subconscious influences.  The most extreme form of this type of influence is brainwashing.  Then, man is not being educated, for even his freedom is taken from him.  Judaism believes in maintaining the institution of freedom.

 

(This lecture was translated by Gila Weinberg.)

 

This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!