|
The Formative Hyperlanguage of the
Hebrew Alphabet of Creation |
| |
1. What is a hyperlanguage?
2. What is a formative hyperlanguage?
3. How can an alphabet have/be a language?
4. What is an alphabet of creation?
|
The Hebrew alphabet, considered as recursive, self-signifying formative functions or patterns,
represents the smallest set of structural-semantic primes or fundamental powers necessary to generate an
indeterminate, autonomous, multiverse.
|
|
|
|
We usually think of alphabets as the building blocks of language, not as languages in themselves.
We know many languages that are made from essentially the same alphabet, and after all, what would "a"
or "b" mean? Which is exactly the point to consider.
What if
"a" or
"b"
had a meaning in addition
to phonetic value? Then each letter of a word would contain its own significance, as well as
contributing meaning to the whole. What if
"a" or
"b"
had spellings themselves, with recursive hyperlinks to the meanings of
those letters, and the letters of those letters? And what if it were necessary to read
a word from both directions, or in different permutations of letters to understand its meaning?
The best description for such a language might be "hyperlanguage" since all its components are
hyperlinked to other components in nested recursions. Formal definition of the word
"hyperlanguage" may not exist. One of Google's few general descriptions may suggest why:
|
Hyperlanguages transcend human languages in the same manner which human languages transcend
the protolanguages of chimpanzees.
Mark Alan Walker:
Prolegomena to Any Future Philosophy
|
What is a formative hyperlanguage?
The search for a perfect, or universal, "adamic" language, or Characteristica Universalis ,
has been a part of human history since the Tower of Babel
and Cratylus.
George Spencer-Brown: Laws of Form
The language of True Names, Signature Rerum.
|
| |
|
From: Memosys:
Dr. Andreas Goppold: Infrastructures of Representation: A Quest for Multimedial Symbolization Systems:
6.
Characteristica Universalis and the Origin of the Symbolator.
|
6.1.4. Precursors and successors of the CU
Leibniz was by no means the first nor the only one to have worked on a universal language (UL) or
character system (CS). Indeed, it could be said that the project of a UL was the craze of the day
in 17th century proto-scientist circles (K88, 96). This quest can (somewhat arbitrarily, ANM:ADAM[107])
be originated with Jacob Böhme (1575-1624) who had called for the re-discovery of the Adamic Language
(or AL), the original language humans were supposed to have spoken before the events that were expressed
in the biblical myth of the building of the Tower of Babel. Francis Bacon (1561-1626) proposed a set
of universal characters in "The Advancement of Learning" and "De Augmentis Scientiarum" in 1623.
The development was carried on. The list includes: Marin Mersenne 1636, John Wilkins 1641,
Francis Lodwick 1647, Thomas Urquaart 1653, Cave Beck 1657, George Dalgarno 1661, Johann Joachim Becher 1661,
Isaak Newton 1661, Athanasius Kircher 1663, Johann Amos Comenius 1668, Johann Sturm 1676, De Vienne Plancy 1681.
(K91, p. 242; K88, 95-97). Leibniz was well aware of the approaches at UL and AL of his forerunners.
Considerable influence in his thoughts had the combinatorical scheme of the Ars Magna of Raimundus Lullus
(1233-1315) which he cites in "De Arte Combinatoria" of 1660. Lullus' system was not a language system
but it played considerable importance in Leibniz' logical work on the CU.
|
6.2.6. Cabbala as Ars Characteristica
The interpretation of the cabbala as given by Suarès follows a thought pattern that we will find
again in the chapter on "Symbolic Machines" or "Formal Character Systems". (See: ->:SYM-MACH, ->:ARS-CHAR )
On page 38 to 40, Suarès describes the cabbala of the SY in terms recognizable as an approximation
to the Ars Characteristica aspect of Leibniz' Characteristica Universalis.
|
The language of the Sepher Yetsira... treats objects - water, fire, human bodies, planets, the zodiac
- only in terms of their situation and of their rôle within an infinitely multiple, hierarchical,
systematisation of the one energising life force. The equations indicating these objects consequently
designate, on all planes, all the structures which exist, or could exist, in the innumerable, known
or unknown, conjugations of this hierarchical system, form the most material to the most rarefied,
from the least to the highest state of consciousness.
SUARES-SEPHER, p. 39
|
The terms used by Suarès are somewhat on the poetic side, but we can recognize the universal,
combinatoric structure of a formal CS as Leibniz also had intended. Whether this interpretation
can be worked through, or operated, cannot be determined here since that would require a thorough
understanding of hebrew.
The cabbala is in this view an Ars Characteristica that has only been confused and confounded with
(mostly theological) meanings by mystics first and later by rational theologists like Gerson Scholem.
|
|
Mr. Scholem provoked the exaggerations to which this way of thinking gave rise, classifying everything under
the false category of "mysticism."
SUARES-SEPHER, p. 20
|
|
| |
Universal languages have generally been approached from the Ars Characteristica
side, as a language of essences present in all things. The formative aspect, which is
why the "True Names" are true, is less considered.
|
In the Sefer Yetzira system, grammar rules the world without its being used in any semantic
manner ... This is a system in which the semantic level of language has been completely marginalized,
viewed as a secondary, relatively insignificant use of a universal scientific set of laws.
The system is not semantic; can it be regarded as a semiotic one? ... is the alphabet of creation a rejection
of a system of signifiers expressing a semantic message and the adoption of an alternative system of signs,
signifying processes in the divine worlds and the actions of the divine powers in the created universe? ...
When a question is raised whether a scientific term is a sign or not, there will be no doubt that the word representing
the term is one. Whatever a quasar or quark really is, the words "quasar" and "quark" are undoubtedly signs, created
artificially to designate esotermic phenomena. But what happens if someone postulates that the enormous energy emitted
from a quasar erupts from the word "quasar" itself? What if a scientific system arrives at the conclusion that the
mountain emerges from the word "volcano"? In such a case, it will be possible to surmise that the word is the signified,
while the material representation is the sign. This is actually the system presented by the Sepher Yetsira:
The letter of the alphabet is the source of the planet, and not a sign by which it is designated.
The Language of Creation and Its Grammar
Joseph Dan, Jewish Mysticism, Vol I, Aronson, 1998, p.151
|
|
Joseph Dan is rare in taking the Sepher Yetsira on its own terms, but
without an understanding of the rich semantic system of the
Book of Formation, he is forced to look
for an "alternative system of signs" in the divine world, which are non-semantic in nature.
This raises the problem of a boundary between meaning and non-meaning, and the part of God's
creation that makes sense and the part that doesn't. The idea of an "alternative system of signs"
that doesn't make sense because they are "magical" will force later commentors like Hayman and Idel
into strange corners.
|
The Sefer Yetzira appears to base its statements and conclusions on observation and
analysis, rather than on homiletical interpretation of biblical verses and the traditions of
ancients sages. Its statements are ones that can be analysed, criticized, and interpreted on
their own merits, rather than in comparison to a proof-text or the truth revealed to previous generations
of sages.
The basic concepts of the Sefer Yetzira are so radically different than those of ancient
Judaism that the attraction they exerted on Jewish Medieval scientists is obvious, once we
successfully detach ourselves from the images introduced by eight centuries of "mythical," "mystical, and
"magical" exegesis on the book.
Three Phases of the History of the Sefer Yetzira
Joseph Dan, Jewish Mysticism, Vol I, Aronson, 1998, p.169
(emphasis added)
|
|
People write Hebrew comments on the book, and other foolish people come later and comment on the commentary.
Between them, the truth is lost ...
Rabbi Yaakov ben Nissim, 10th century CE.
|
The Sepher Yetsira is a scientific, cosmological work, not a mystical, homiletic (à la Zohar) commentary.
Eight centuries of mythological, anthropomorphizing, theosophizing images must be discarded to approach
the Sepher Yetsira on its own completely rational and scientific terms.
|
| |
6.2.7. Structural Properties of the Cabbala
A further discussion of the cabbala requires a thorough understanding of Hebrew,
which we cannot supply here. What we can do, is look at the formal aspects of the cabbalistic
system. An important observation is the tree structure of the autiot characters. Since the
name of each character can be expanded in a manner of context free grammars, each character
or aut gives rise to an endlessly repeating tree structure.
ALEPH is constructed of
ALEPH LAMMED PHAY
LAMMED is constructed of
LAMMED MEM DALLET
MEM--MEM--MEM
DALLET is constructed of
DALLET LAMMED TAV
and so on.
Now this in itself may be nice but there is nothing new to it. We can do the same with the Greek
Alpha-Beta system and form a tree, or in whatever language where the letters have full names.
But we have a start that we will come back to. In the chapter on fractal character systems
we will show a way to make good use of a nested character structure. Its system is somewhat
different but it is following the same line of thought.
->:FRACTAL
A very interesting possibility should ensue when we can find a systematic means of changing
the tree hidden under a character as influenced by its neighbor characters. This has not been
envisioned by the cabbalists who had nothing but their unaided brains to do their symbol processing
for them. (ANM:LIFE[108]) Such exploits are better done with the symbolator.
|
|
What's new is the meaning: understanding each recursive letter as an abstract, generalized,
biologically-structured formative pattern/process (or structural/energetic or semantic/semiotic)
"fundamental power of all being." [ * ].
It's not the tree under the letter that changes (their recursive sturctures are unaffected).
Instead, they all contribute their nested semantic structures to the whole, whose integration
is the work of the formator, who stands in the center and makes the links on the appropriate levels of structuration
and signification.
|
|
Ten Sephirot Belimah. Ten and not nine. Ten and not eleven. Understand with Hhokmah. Meditate with
Binah. Examine them. Delve into them and experiment with them. And the one who is there (standing) speaks
to his creator and puts the maker of form in his rightful place (or, his foundation).
Suares, SY, 1:4
|
The formative/symbolic meanings and recursive structures of the
Hypertext
Hebrew Alphabet can be explored in depth. As an introduction to
qualities of our theoretical hyperlanguage, we can examine the structures
of the first six letters of the alphabet.
|
| Recursive Expansions of the First Six Letters of the Hebrew Alphabet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: repeating autiot meant to imply infinite series, different layouts can be constructed.
The first six letters of the Hebrew alphabet contain three different kinds of structures,
or semantic automata: two infinite repeating series, one complex (Aleph, Bayt, Ghimel, Dalet),
one simple (Waw) and one non-recursive, terminating character (Hay).
It is important to remember that we are dealing with biologically structured
energies in different states of organization. The first four letters,
while very different in meaning and action, share a common biological process
in their roots: the Dalet-Lamed-Mem rhythm of
controlled response (Lamed) in a
resistant (Dalet) biological pattern (Mem).
We have learned from
recent research that complex structures
may be produced by simple rules. Whether or not a meaningful principle of computational
equivilance exists, it is interesting to contemplate the results from
complex rules.
|
|
|
With this brief introduction to the deep structure of individual letters,
we can now put a few of them together and examine the consequences.
The first three letters of Genesis/Bereshit,
bring thirteen into creation, including
itself. When examined in their deep structure and interrelatedness, we
immediately recognize the fundamental theme of the qabala: creation
is the result of the structuration of the one dual energy.
|
|
|
The central Raysh endogenously produces in existence the cosmic Sheen, breath of God.
The first, exterior, Yod of outer existence supports the Bayt process, providing
material containers for cosmic energy. The second, interior, Yod provided by the
inner Yod of Raysh-Yod-Sheen-Yod-Noun supports the Aleph process,
bringing the Intemporal into existence. This double structuration of energy, immediately
evident in the expansion of the first three letters of Bereshit/Genesis, can be found in
every word and verse of the first four chapters of the Bible.
|
| Qualifiying and Non-Qualifying Autiot |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| 200 |
100 |
90 |
70 |
60 |
9 |
8 |
7 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
| 20 |
19 |
18 |
16 |
15 |
9 |
8 |
7 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
| Structural Non-Participants |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| 400 |
300 |
80 |
50 |
40 |
30 |
20 |
10 |
6 |
5 |
4 |
| 22 |
21 |
17 |
14 |
13 |
12 |
11 |
10 |
6 |
5 |
4 |
| Structural Participants |
|
|
|
|
Semantic Structure and Formative Meanings of the Hebrew Alphabet: Summary
Calculus Ratiocinator, Characteristica Universalis
|
| |
|
|
| |
