blackoxford's review
5.0
Creative Destruction
The subject of Fishbane’s book is a certain Isaac of Akko, a medieval Palestinian Kabbalist. The biographical and sociological detail of Isaac’s life is probably of limited interest to most readers. However, Fishbane’s analysis and interpretation of Isaac’s intellectual process is likely to be relevant to a much wider readership which is unaware of Kabbalah’s principal concern. I am surprised, for example, that there is not substantially more investigation of Kabbalah in modern philosophy, especially regarding the philosophy of language. The following comments are meant to briefly explain that position.
Mystical history and narrative is likely to be somewhat alien to modern sensibilities. Talk about the inner life of God, assimilation into the divine, and spiritual transformation uses a vocabulary that is as abstruse and complex as that of higher mathematics. Like mathematics mystical analysis refers constantly to imaginary entities that have no reference (or apparent relevance) to normal human existence. And the fact that mystics are mostly religious enthusiasts, often verging on the fanatical, doesn’t promote the popularity of the genre.
But I nevertheless find mystical literature, particularly Kabbalah, to be of significant value to my own investigations of language. There is good reason to believe that the fundamental intention of Kabbalah is to address the issue of language. In the first instance language itself is indistinguishable from the divine. It exists entirely independently, and it pervades every aspect of human life. Without it, as René Descartes implied, we would be unable to think at all much less discuss attributes of the divine. Language is effectively eternal and infinitely powerful. Many people even end up worshipping it in the form of beliefs and creeds which are deemed to be divinely fixed.
It is this religious problem - the pervasive idolatry of language - at which Kabbalah intersects with the philosophical problem that has been called epistemology, the discernment of reality and its relationship with language. The idolatry of language is not just a religious problem; it is a malaise which affects all of humanity. Confusing the map provided by language with the territory of lived experience is a universal tendency. Perhaps it is the secular articulation of Augustine’s original sin. And, perhaps, as Augustine said, we are unable to extract ourselves from the clutches of this condition - among other reasons because we only have the tool of language to assist us, the very source of our delusional condition.
Fortunately, Judaic Kabbalah lacks the onerous doctrinal burden of Augustinian original sin; so it identifies the locus of the problem not in the spiritual constitution of human beings but in their unique ability allowed by this constitution: the use of language. Kabbalah makes the distinction between the Upper and the Lower worlds. The former is what we now call Reality; the latter is the world of Language itself. We exist in both these worlds simultaneously. But Language inhibits our capacity for recognising much less appreciating Reality. The problem that Kabbalah therefore addresses is the integration of these two worlds - the opening of Language to Reality. Hence Kabbalah’s relevance to epistemology.
Weather Kabbalah is successful or not in achieving this integration is an empirical issue that I am not competent to judge. It is worth noting however that no other attempt at a reliable epistemology has ever been successful. The gap between words and things-in-themselves, as Immanuel Kant referred to reality, is as wide now as it has ever been. But I find it remarkable that Kabbalah anticipates many of the most important aspects of modern critical method which has followed in the failure of the epistemological project.
The first of these methodological aspects is attention to the intention, that is to say interests, of previous kabbalistic authors and commentators. This is an inductive process that must be carried out sympathetically as Fishbane recognises in his analysis:
The second striking methodological feature of Kabbalah is the tolerance for interpretive diversity. The job of the Kabbalist, as Fishbane sees it, is not to decide which among historical traditions is best but to reconcile contrary and even contradictory interpretations through an interpretation of his own:
Interestingly, this interpretive method reflects not just the practice of Kabbalah but also the process by which all of biblical literature, Christian as well as Jewish, has been produced in its transition from oral history, editing, emendation and frequent revision:
The result of Kabbalistic interpretation, therefore, is simultaneously the destruction of existing meaning - effectively the undermining of conventional language - and the establishment of a synthetic interpretation which ‘re-sets’ the relationships among words, reports, and entire narratives, as well as between these and the people who use them. Thus the Lower world of Language is relativised and shown not to be the Upper world of Reality. Language is used to subvert itself. Truth (emet ) is not fixed; it floats not just as a matter of best opinion but as a temporary synthesis which continues to point further interpretation, so that: “...seemingly different systems are ultimately capable not only of mutual toleration but of mutual integration as part of a single underlying structure of meaning and theological wisdom.”
I am not an aficionado of Kabbalah. But it appears clear to me that it has much to say in the modern discussion of fake news, scientific reliability, and the authenticity of political institutions. Isaac of Akko’s prayer regarding his own work seems particularly apt as a generally instructive aphorism:“May it be the will of the One who illuminates the eyes of those who see, that He should always illumine our eyes so that we may understand the entirety of [human] intention.”
The subject of Fishbane’s book is a certain Isaac of Akko, a medieval Palestinian Kabbalist. The biographical and sociological detail of Isaac’s life is probably of limited interest to most readers. However, Fishbane’s analysis and interpretation of Isaac’s intellectual process is likely to be relevant to a much wider readership which is unaware of Kabbalah’s principal concern. I am surprised, for example, that there is not substantially more investigation of Kabbalah in modern philosophy, especially regarding the philosophy of language. The following comments are meant to briefly explain that position.
Mystical history and narrative is likely to be somewhat alien to modern sensibilities. Talk about the inner life of God, assimilation into the divine, and spiritual transformation uses a vocabulary that is as abstruse and complex as that of higher mathematics. Like mathematics mystical analysis refers constantly to imaginary entities that have no reference (or apparent relevance) to normal human existence. And the fact that mystics are mostly religious enthusiasts, often verging on the fanatical, doesn’t promote the popularity of the genre.
But I nevertheless find mystical literature, particularly Kabbalah, to be of significant value to my own investigations of language. There is good reason to believe that the fundamental intention of Kabbalah is to address the issue of language. In the first instance language itself is indistinguishable from the divine. It exists entirely independently, and it pervades every aspect of human life. Without it, as René Descartes implied, we would be unable to think at all much less discuss attributes of the divine. Language is effectively eternal and infinitely powerful. Many people even end up worshipping it in the form of beliefs and creeds which are deemed to be divinely fixed.
It is this religious problem - the pervasive idolatry of language - at which Kabbalah intersects with the philosophical problem that has been called epistemology, the discernment of reality and its relationship with language. The idolatry of language is not just a religious problem; it is a malaise which affects all of humanity. Confusing the map provided by language with the territory of lived experience is a universal tendency. Perhaps it is the secular articulation of Augustine’s original sin. And, perhaps, as Augustine said, we are unable to extract ourselves from the clutches of this condition - among other reasons because we only have the tool of language to assist us, the very source of our delusional condition.
Fortunately, Judaic Kabbalah lacks the onerous doctrinal burden of Augustinian original sin; so it identifies the locus of the problem not in the spiritual constitution of human beings but in their unique ability allowed by this constitution: the use of language. Kabbalah makes the distinction between the Upper and the Lower worlds. The former is what we now call Reality; the latter is the world of Language itself. We exist in both these worlds simultaneously. But Language inhibits our capacity for recognising much less appreciating Reality. The problem that Kabbalah therefore addresses is the integration of these two worlds - the opening of Language to Reality. Hence Kabbalah’s relevance to epistemology.
Weather Kabbalah is successful or not in achieving this integration is an empirical issue that I am not competent to judge. It is worth noting however that no other attempt at a reliable epistemology has ever been successful. The gap between words and things-in-themselves, as Immanuel Kant referred to reality, is as wide now as it has ever been. But I find it remarkable that Kabbalah anticipates many of the most important aspects of modern critical method which has followed in the failure of the epistemological project.
The first of these methodological aspects is attention to the intention, that is to say interests, of previous kabbalistic authors and commentators. This is an inductive process that must be carried out sympathetically as Fishbane recognises in his analysis:
“Isaac of Akko frequently seeks to establish authentic meaning by alluding to a postulated intention of the author. The assumption of this rhetoric is that the underlying truth of the text’s meaning requires implied information (the unwritten mental intent of the author) that is not necessarily provided at the text’s surface level. As we shall see, this implicit knowledge is at the disposal of the interpreter (in this case, Isaac of Akko) because of an oral reception to that effect or through his unique hermeneutical ability to discern the implied intentions of the master... The authenticity of Isaac’s role as transmitter rests on his ability to posit the true authorial intention...”
The second striking methodological feature of Kabbalah is the tolerance for interpretive diversity. The job of the Kabbalist, as Fishbane sees it, is not to decide which among historical traditions is best but to reconcile contrary and even contradictory interpretations through an interpretation of his own:
“Isaac of Akko thus adheres to what we may call a pluralistic hermeneutic. The task of the truly enlightened individual is to realize that there is no essential hierarchy in kabbalistic interpretive meaning... All received traditions (from reputable sources) may be included under the legitimating shelter of the term ’emet (true/truth)—a conception of truth that allows for a broad range of diversity, and ultimately seeks to resolve all apparent contradictions. I would argue that we encounter here a nondeterminate and unstable meaning structure, insofar as Isaac seeks to posit a conception of meaning that is not restricted to one fixed line of argument and interpretation. Meaning, under the expansive rubric of kabbalistic reception, may be characterized as a fluid pluralism, owing to the fact that no single interpretation is to be given priority over another, and no single view is to be entirely rejected in favor of another...”
Interestingly, this interpretive method reflects not just the practice of Kabbalah but also the process by which all of biblical literature, Christian as well as Jewish, has been produced in its transition from oral history, editing, emendation and frequent revision:
“... the imperative of interpretive reconciliation and harmonization provides justification for the eclectic method, lending it legitimacy through an implicit theory of unfixed and nondetermined meaning. The attempt to reconcile disparate meanings under a single exegetical roof rests on an assumption of interpretive flexibility (i.e., not unequivocal, not stable)—pluralism is possible because a fixed determinate meaning is not... conflicting interpretations are all pieces of a single overarching Truth (תמא). Thus true in theory to his eclectic practice, Isaac seeks to harmonize contrasting views and to integrate them into a single whole.”
The result of Kabbalistic interpretation, therefore, is simultaneously the destruction of existing meaning - effectively the undermining of conventional language - and the establishment of a synthetic interpretation which ‘re-sets’ the relationships among words, reports, and entire narratives, as well as between these and the people who use them. Thus the Lower world of Language is relativised and shown not to be the Upper world of Reality. Language is used to subvert itself. Truth (emet ) is not fixed; it floats not just as a matter of best opinion but as a temporary synthesis which continues to point further interpretation, so that: “...seemingly different systems are ultimately capable not only of mutual toleration but of mutual integration as part of a single underlying structure of meaning and theological wisdom.”
I am not an aficionado of Kabbalah. But it appears clear to me that it has much to say in the modern discussion of fake news, scientific reliability, and the authenticity of political institutions. Isaac of Akko’s prayer regarding his own work seems particularly apt as a generally instructive aphorism:“May it be the will of the One who illuminates the eyes of those who see, that He should always illumine our eyes so that we may understand the entirety of [human] intention.”
More...