Philosophical Journal

Personal. Please do not read

Writing is a disease (and vice versa)  (Source)

The subject of our time wastes his life. Why? Because the current subject is the writing subject - who has no talent. Not in literature (at least). Worse - there is no more literature. Because in such times when the system itself has collapsed as a system, it is felt even more how much of a fiction it is, that there is no such thing as literature - there is what people write. The idea has collapsed. Because literature is not an abstract idea - but a system. And if the system collapses, the idea also does not exist: the idea is the system (not the general or ideal case, like the Platonic one, or all cases, as in Aristotle, but the system of all cases. The systematicity is what creates the idea, as something that is not only in the details, and not only in the interaction between them - which is also part of the system's details - but in its overall operation, like in the act of learning, which is a systemic action and not an action of parts of the system. The neurons do not learn, but the brain does). And what is the tragedy of the current subject? That what he enjoys is what he is not good at (and vice versa). But, if we're honest, let's ask: Is this really the laugh of fate? Or, perhaps, maybe, it's not a coincidence at all. Like someone trying to find favor specifically in the eyes of his enemy, or a girl who keeps going back to try to sleep with the guy who treated her the worst. Why does the current subject enjoy precisely what he is not good at, you know? Does writing fulfill a therapeutic need for him? If only. Like in sex for a man, just releasing is the most worthless thing. And the woman's situation is different. Because there is no such thing as just releasing for her. That is, the man depends on the woman for sexual meaning, just as the writer depends on literature - and on the pleasure of literature itself - for literary meaning, and every writer needs to pleasure some system, for example the philosopher needs to pleasure philosophy. The subject needs to imagine subjectively, so that his action is not as an object in the world of objects. Without a woman - there is no subject. She is what makes the I exist (Genesis, 1-3). She is what turns man into a system. Before her, he is an animal like all animals. Not because of the intersubjective communication between them, not because of language, but because they are a system. And only a system can learn. That is: to be culture. And the problem of today's subject is that it is easiest to be tempted. Almost every key and every button he presses is also a letter. Even sex he imagines as a kind of communication, where his nerves press on her nerves, and transmit pleasure messages from him to her. Therefore, the attempt to communicate with an imaginary subjective - much worse than an imaginary subject - is a bad habit, that is: corruption, in vain and for naught, and not only of him, but of the subjective (that's why literature is dead). But the current subject enjoys it, and therefore it is an addiction, and detoxification is needed. But why does he enjoy it, if it's so unenjoyable? Because he imagines literature - the pleasure of literature, but she doesn't enjoy. No more idiot is needed. Therefore, the writer of our time not only corrupts himself - but her, literature itself, because he needs her as corrupted for the realization of his narcissistic fantasy. He harms the system - more than he harms himself, although he is of course also harmed, because no response or moan or creak that he somehow manages to extract from the corpse of old literature will satisfy his needs, which are after all his desires, and hence he is driven to his doom by his own hand. Aesthetic pleasure is the enemy of this subject, and so is intellectual pleasure (if he is an intellectual), and it is what sends him to scribble. He thinks that what needs to be done with the subjective, and what establishes the connection between them is communication, not learning. Writing, not thinking (what is pornography? The communication of sex, not sex itself. And the peak of corruption is the perception that sex is communication, meaning sex itself becomes pornography, and therefore there is a need to document it, when it was always the least documented thing in the world, and that was its uniqueness, that is, what gave it uniqueness - that it is private and therefore a special domain for each person, and therefore different for everyone, and not replicated in culture like other domains. Hence its connection to creativity and freedom - and whoever does not understand this sexual component in literature, so private, is one for whom literature is pornography, because its whole purpose is to publicize this private act and this unique domain between a person and literature that is done in solitude. The strongest and most provocative sex for publication is sex done precisely out of unwillingness to publish, because it is the real sex, just as sometimes what's in parentheses is the real meaning, because it is not written as part of the story, but added later as something that cannot be done without, that is, something that is not wanted to be said but is said. But you need to read without the parentheses to understand what is really said and hidden). Therefore, current writing operates according to pornographic logic, not in the graphic sense, but the original, writing, graphomaniac sense: whore writing. The writer tries to attract attention in a world that has lost its heart. There is no more core, and therefore he directs his efforts to the genitals: for example to the literary editor, to publications, to journals, to newspapers, to Facebook, etc. And not to literature itself, which he only imagines its pleasure, and enjoys his own imagination, and therefore needs its erasure. Pornography is not a case, but a principle (because he needs corruption, and what is easier to corrupt than aesthetics? Even a woman needs to fake. And where is there a field that is all fake and fiction?). The problem is not that writers don't read, that's just a symptom, but that readers write, meaning that reading itself has become a kind of writing, because enjoyment depends entirely on pleasuring - but there is no one left to pleasure. There are no more women. Only men. Therefore, writing has no readers. And therefore women are imagined. If once literature in the novel and in romance was a literary imagination of women, that is, dressing imagination from literature onto reality (from Don Quixote to his granddaughter Madame Bovary), today the women themselves are imagined - and literature itself. The books themselves are imagined - and this is the new disease of Don Quixote. But all current writing is in vain, because there is nothing you can write that will attract real attention, learning-based (as opposed to fasting), because the state of the subject today is of a learner without a system. There is no heart, which is the inner self-evident of the system (even attention they achieved as attentiveness, that is, as communicative attention, as directing the reception channel, instead of as an internal learning-oriented). Since all systems try to communicate their most intimate thing (even intelligence today exposes its secrets, politics its scandals, and so on), because they think they are communication systems (while sexuality is precisely the site of learning, that is, of the system's deviation from itself, and not of conformity to patterns, as in language), all systems lose their learning heart - and are corrupted very quickly, like any communication system per se, which becomes a system of competition over noise, and nothing more can be heard in it (because in communication there is no criterion and no purpose, unlike learning, and when there is no judgment then the judgment is very primitive - and therefore the dynamics are very simple: make waves in the swamp). Today any prose you write will no longer change, and so will any poetry, because of the flooding in them, and the only thing that still has literary meaning is the hardest form of all, and therefore the rarest today: dramatic poem. Long poetry that tells a story. This is the last form left, because it was not contaminated, because it really requires Sisyphean work, and therefore does not flatter the philosophically corrupted subject (that is, seeing everything from within himself) of our time, but deters him. This is the only way still to the heart of the system, because in it the great works were written (including the Torah in its ancient form, the Book of Jashar and the Wars of the Lord, and through Dante and Shakespeare). And what else is left to tell? The only advantage of our time, in terms of the parameters that have existed since time immemorial, is the ability to talk about sexuality as it was not in the past. And here one can go in the Greek mimetic model, detailed and long, which aspires to the real. If in an Iliad that will describe sexual conquests in excess, and in masculinity, while referring to the multiplicity of conquests to infinity like the killings in battle, and the meaninglessness, or the insight that arises from it, in the attempt of the great conquest of "the" woman (Troy), in the style of Shabtai. Or in a second work that will be the Odyssey of sexuality, which begins from a relationship with a woman that disintegrates and becomes more and more unattainable, in the Kafkaesque style in front of the castle, and becomes a hopeless obsession - and therefore endless (yes, in both Greek models failure will come, because the epic is blocked to us, and we must have tragedy. And the Iliad is not a tragedy and the story of Achilles does not end in the failure of hubris, as one might think, but in the wonderful moments of grace between him and the father of the one he killed, in which he cries in him over his son and he cries over his father, that is, the catharsis is explicit in the text in the Homeric plots, and not only in the viewer's feeling, because Homer interprets everything, and in contrast the tragedy in theater is already following the Philistine-Greek encounter with the echoes of the Bible, and therefore summarized. Because the mimetic describes to us the system, all of it, so that learning arises from it by itself, and in contrast to it the mythical is the minimum of the minimum of the system, and therefore compresses it and summarizes it. That is, according to Occam's razor, that learning is the shortest explanation for the system, the mythical is the essence of learning the system, from which all the rest of the system can be inferred. And therefore the Jewish myth is infinitely stronger than the Greek myth, which does not live today, and already in the ancient world was understood more as an allegory, because of its mimetic excess to reality, with human gods, many and multiplying, and with many different plots, while the Hebrew myth is restrained and barely willing to say anything about God, and this abbreviated fear around it creates the feeling of secrecy, that is, the feeling that there is still something to learn, and that is not said, which drove Jewish learning in its continuation, both as interpretation, and as detailing of the law, as if not enough commandments were given from Sinai. And so was the original tragedy, deus ex machina, and hence its religious context, and its summarizing-mythical power exceeding Homer). Even in the dramatic poem one can now also go in the Hebrew mythical and therefore abbreviated model, with new mythical materials available to us like the Holocaust (mythicality is still possible within the Hasidic world, whether in Hasidic tales or in Breslov tales or in Kafka, in the way of the abstract parable that has no specific moral, but infinite morals, and hence its power). In the previous mythical materials, the biblical ones, one can still touch only outside this world, that is, in the fantasy genre, for example perhaps in the story of the history of Eden ("These are the generations of the Garden of Eden") or Hell, throughout history. Only in this way can one still tell a myth in the past, in the primary materials, in a non-realistic arena. We no longer have the ability to write something like the plagues of Egypt with blood and frogs, or any supernatural or extraordinary story, on a natural stage, but only within a supernatural stage from the outset, and only in this way can one still write myth. That is, if one wants to touch the heart of literature, for example in the mythical, or in the sexual... (which is also mythical, at its core. You need "literature" for literature. You need "woman" for woman. The severe harm of pornography is not to woman - but to "woman". Not to literature - but to "literature". And all the argument between these bad writers is whether the writer should pleasure himself - or the reader, when they do not understand that he needs to pleasure literature, and if they understand they do not know at all what is the difference between their pleasure, or the pleasure of language, and the pleasure of literature. Because pleasure for them is a technical thing, while pleasure is the renewal of meaning, because what repeats itself does not please. And this is in general the connection of pleasure to learning, and the reason that pleasure is built like this is precisely because this is what creates learning, everything that the brain already anticipates and knows - its pleasure decreases, and precisely this negative definition of pleasure, more than any positive definition or goal or idea, is the enormous driving force of learning, and the difference between us and ruminating animals). All these are things at the core of literature, because they are at the core of its learning, but how great is the gap between them and writing today, as the gap between the Song of Songs and porn. And why are they at its core? Because they deal with the learning of literature itself. With its learning as a system. And not with the position of learners without a system, who think that their learning replaces the learning of the system, that is, the subjects of our time who are centered on themselves, and the system is around them, from their point of view. And therefore they invent it as a fantasy, which serves them, and do not serve it as a lady, and therefore they are not pleasuring men, who hide their self-pleasure in that technically it's sex, and technically it's a book, and technically it's a text. But is it really a text? And we have already learned (that is, there is wisdom here), that there is no way to fight a flood, but to divert it. To a less destructive direction. For example: a philosophical journal. Which is less attractive, and therefore maybe will not happen. And so we can suppress the disease of writing. I am not one of those who will "defeat cancer", but one of those who will plan their death.



What's the difference between complicated and complex, complicated and complex? Is it the quantity of connections in the system, or their quality, which is a quality of complexity? That is, is the system defined linguistically, through the connections within it, which if they are non-linear and too many for the human brain, like the brain itself, they are complex, because they are chaotic and everything affects everything, and there is no way to untie the knot? After all, if you look at the connectome of any brain, even of a fly, and even a few neurons, the first thing you see is that it's not complicated by chance, but this thing was meant to be complex, it's not a bug it's a feature, it's what they wanted from the start - complex in an unbelievable way. Such a linguistic definition is not dichotomous but soft, and does not really capture the sharp difference between complicated and complex, whose essence is the question: what is amenable to orderly learning. The complicated is amenable to orderly learning, that is, one that is efficient in relation to its complication, and ordered on a straight line of progress and construction, that is, the complicated is in P. While the complex is in NP, and is not amenable to orderly, or structured learning, and there is no unambiguous direction of progress in it. Therefore the brain is complex, because it is designed to deal with NP problems. And a computer that deals with problems in P is enough for it to be complicated, and indeed the central phenomenon we see in computer systems, from the chip to huge operating systems and software, is the hell of the complicated, as opposed to the complex. Doesn't the brain deal with problems in P? Of course that's most of what it deals with, but it deals with the learning problem of solving P problems, which is already an NP problem. The brain is complex because it learns. Is our universe complex or complicated? In all the domain above the quantum, except the biological, the universe is complicated, and therefore physics is possible. In the quantum domain and string connections - the question is open, whether the universe in its essence is complex or complicated, and whether it solves P problems, or NP, or learns to solve P problems, which is itself an NP problem. Biology and mathematics are complex phenomena (yes, mathematics is not complicated, it is complex!), and biology that is above physics shows that it is not a question of the quantity of connections, because in fact something complex can be built from a quantity larger by orders of magnitude of things that remain only complicated, despite having many more connections within them (like biology above chemistry, or a neural network above the processor). And conversely, the quantum complex builds the complicated chemistry, that is, one can also descend from complex to complicated. Is culture complex? This is itself a complex problem, that is, probably in the past culture was complicated, but with the proliferation of those engaged in it today, it has become complex, and therefore murky and therefore it is no longer possible to see what is happening in it. But in the past, in retrospect, one can look at it in a learning way and see the process of its construction, and agree on masterpieces (milestones in learning). That is, it may be a problem of perspective, and that culture is always complex in real time and complicated in past time. That is, its maximum point of complexity is its contact with the future, where its learning takes place. If so, it has a characterization of a learning system. On the one hand, it solves complicated problems, that is, possible to solve (P), but finding this solution itself is a complex problem (NP). Learning is the complex problem of solving complicated problems, or the transition from complex to complicated. One who looks at the woman as complicated is the pornographer who thinks that an algorithm can be found for her, while one who looks at her as complex is the romantic (who is notoriously bad in bed). And the learner is the lover type who turns a complex problem into a complicated one, and therefore builds a relationship, which is the most important learning action for a person's happiness in his life: to build relationships. Not because you think people are just complicated (this is the way of the manipulator, who breaks down the rival system into levers of influence), but out of the fact that they are complex, you learn to build something (only) complicated with them. That is, something that works. The purpose of realistic literature is therefore not to tell us how complex the world is, for this is a very small and very trite wisdom, but to turn it from complex to complicated - this is the action of a good novel, and hence its value in interpreting reality. But of course the royal road in learning is to learn from reality, and not to interpret it, which is a completely different matter. This is not meaning work, but learning work. Philosophy has come a long way here, from ontological conceptions that sought factors in reality, such as causes and purposes (reverse factor, from the end), through epistemological talks, which sought perceptions of reality, and finally linguistic thinking, which sought some meaning that is hidden in it or that arises from it or that is found within it (the language system) - and this was their approach to the world. But learning thinking is different: not what is the cause, the purpose, the perception, the meaning, or even the system itself, but what do you learn from it. What is the lesson in the thing. Not because it is obligatory (this is not logic, which is ideational causality). But because this is the thing you can take from it. We are not coming to convince you why (for example why to keep commandments), or to determine for you what the perception or what the meaning of it is, or even not what is the place of it within the system, but to look for what to learn from it. And this is strong precisely because it is not obligatory, and therefore it is precisely obligatory, because precisely this, on the other hand, allows to progress (although you can learn many things from it, you can learn from it only something specific, and not all things. And to learn in all directions in parallel, as in a non-deterministic Turing machine, this is the complex, which you also cannot untie, although it is a ball of yarn, except by pulling a specific thread, or another strategy that can be very complicated, but not complex. Because in the complex all possibilities mix to no end, while learning is choosing a possibility. Even if there are many possibilities, as in the complicated, still learning is orientation. A Talmudic discussion can be complicated, but if it is complex, it's a sign that you didn't understand the Gemara and everything got mixed up in your brain - a sign that you didn't learn. If this text is complicated for you - okay. If it is complex - you didn't understand. Your life can be complicated, but it must not be complex. A complicated society is an advanced society, while a complex society is chaos and anarchy. So let's stop getting tangled in parentheses, and return to the line, because the idea of the line stems from direction: it has a direction). Why? Because unlike the loss of meaning, which is "because it's not obligatory" and then any meaning can be, here learning means that you commit to a certain direction and continue from it onwards, and cannot remain stuck in the position of all directions are equal and possible like Socrates' donkey. Therefore, the fact that learning is not obligatory does not paralyze like the idea that meaning is not obligatory, because once you have chosen a certain lesson and learning, that is, once you have learned something specific from the thing, you have (by definition, if you really learned) already moved on. And you didn't get stuck in it. It's not a game, because it's touch and go, and therefore freedom of choice does not translate into arbitrariness. Don't erase what you've already written. Because it testifies to a certain learning process. And so you can write. Otherwise you will always get stuck on the first word, because it's clear to you that you could have learned differently, that is, that this text could have ended differently and perhaps reached other conclusions, but this very fact does not negate the learning that was done in it, its validity or its value, because here learning was done. There was a move. And that's how life is. You understand? And death too is such a move, a point of no return move, and therefore it is the ultimate learning move, despite its arbitrariness (because of it!), despite it not being obligatory - because there is no return from it. It obliges. A good death is the summary move of learning, from which one cannot return, like a will, while a bad death is just the end of learning, without summarizing it. This is how we understand for example sudden death, or meaningless death, or the death of a young person, or of a person who did not finish his life's work (like me). Therefore it is great wisdom to summarize your life on your tombstone, in an epitaph. Or in a last haiku. Or in last words. As is customary among philosophers. Tell them my life was terrible.



In what sense do we become wiser with the years? The Greek ontologist would say that we encounter more entities, like Odysseus the man of many experiences. The epistemologist would say that it's not that we replace our perceptions, but that our perceptions expand, we are able to look at things from more perspectives, a Kantian would say. Not that we understand better, but can understand the world in more ways, for example from the viewpoints of different ages, different cultures, both from the right and from the left, both from religion and from secularism, and also of different people. And how does this happen? Because we met more people and not because we encountered more entities, and also not necessarily because of some internal development, like some biological clock of maturity, but simply because we met and collided and were forced to deal with these different perspectives in our life experience. And so for each period in philosophy there is a different conceptualization of wisdom, that is, of that old age of Ecclesiastes, which is different from the love of wisdom of philosophy, because it is not wisdom (hochma) but wisening (hachkama), which is a much wiser concept, much more mature. Not "reason" but life wisdom, and in it the advantage is to the old philosopher, compared to the young philosopher, who is brilliant but not wise at all. Here the logician, for example, will speak of the progress of mathematics, which is not essentially progress in solving old mathematical problems, but on the contrary, finding new mathematical problems, that is, the expansion of mathematics is not progress forward on the axis of the problem, in the direction of proof, in logical sequence, but mathematical maturity is mainly in lateral connections between distant problems in mathematics, and expanding the mathematical space, that is, it is not the progress of a line, but of an area, and even volume, that is, progress in dimensions (and since every feature is another dimension, it is progress in the dimensions of dimensions, and dimensions of dimensions of dimensions - this is the depth being discussed). And the philosopher of language would say that it's not that our language becomes better and more correct (that's an incorrect concept of language), but that it expands, that is, we learn to speak more languages, for example we learn anew the language of childhood when a child is born to us, or we learn the language of old age, or the language of prayer, if something happens to us, for example an illness. Languages we were not able to speak or even understand - become fluent on our tongues. The progress in political theory is not in reaching the ideal state but in refining the idea of the state in more conceptual frameworks, and knowing more possible types of states and state processes - expanding the state horizon. Therefore this is a wisdom of possibilities, not of necessity. Aesthetic progress is not that aesthetics is more beautiful than before, but the expansion of beauty itself, and therefore this maturity quickly rots into decadence if it is misunderstood, namely as inclusion, that is, that beauty changes to include everything, as if we were saying that language changes to say any nonsense and lose its meaning, or perception to "anything goes". No, but it is about the ability to look at things from several different ideals of beauty in parallel, each of which is different, like the ability to perceive the same thing from several points of view, which is different from the aspiration to perceive it from infinite points of view or from any possible point of view, which is an idea that negates the very point of view. As if Odysseus from learning so many things and experiencing so much no longer knows anything - no, on the contrary. He knows a lot. Because he doesn't know everything. And he who knows everything is the one who knows nothing. There is no meaning to his knowledge, just as there is no meaning to a language in which every word exists and one can say any possible combination of words that counts rabbit system to go who suspectedyouchach. And here, unlike all the history of philosophy, the philosopher of learning conceptualizes it differently: There is no meaning to learning in which one can learn anything. Our maturation and ripening and wisening are not progress in a certain, specific learning, in its continuation, but the expansion of learning, which is what expands the system more than any progress of the system. This is the ability to learn in different ways, in different methods, and beyond them - to contain different learning interests, that is, to be interested in many directions. Maturity is the deep curiosity that creates depth not from a move in space but from perspective within it, but from its own perspectives that open up, from its horizons, from its dimensions curiosity is the ability to be interested from many directions to many directions, and to develop interest in a field you weren't interested in before, for example music, as opening a new horizon to the system, and not as adding another wing or part to it, but as adding a direction to the map and not another continent. It's not that learning advances us in that we know more and reach more correct conclusions with age, but the wisdom we accumulate is precisely the ability to reach more conclusions (not - all conclusions, which would negate learning). Therefore wisdom is related to the ability to learn - and not to learn faster and more correctly - but with more freedom. For example in more different methods we encountered in our lives, for example from different fields of knowledge, or from different worlds. This is not internal learning that occurs within us, and therefore it depends on learning from the world. Not because we learn something specific, additional from the world that we didn't know (or even many such things), not in accumulating material - but in accumulating spirit. Not in learning the world but in what the world teaches us. That is, in adding ways of learning. And interest is the horizon of every way of learning, it is what lies at its end that cannot be reached but we walk towards its light. That is, unlike direction, which is a local direction, interest is a global direction, which is at the end of learning or at its beginning - there is no longer a difference, because what matters is its direction to create the path as a whole, as opposed to a specific move or step in it. And therefore learning moves between directions to interest, that is, it is the graph of the function, which is between its derivatives and the integral that summarizes it. Therefore, if a person has many abilities to be interested, he sees wider directions, and he can look from his place to many horizons - he is high, overlooking. And this is broadness of horizons. And the narrow person is one who is trapped in a wadi in progress in one learning, in one language, in one view, and sometimes even in an obsession with one entity. This is for example the capitalist whose whole world is money, the hedonist whose whole world is pleasure, the idealist whose whole world is a certain idea, or the fundamentalist, and so on. Worse than him is one who decides not to progress even in one direction, you understand? One who chooses zero, to cut off the chain of learning, the course of learning that began long before us and will end long after us, that is, beyond our horizon, in things we cannot be interested in at all, let alone talk about them, or understand them, but learning will reach them. And so too things that learning has passed, that we are not able to be interested in at all, because they are beyond our horizon behind, like all our history from a single cell to man. We are not able to understand the learning drive that operates bacteria. Because although bacteria have no brain, they have one thing in common with us - and that is learning. Therefore learning exists even beyond the realm of our understanding, let alone the realm of our language, where we already stop at monkeys, whose world is mute to us. We can understand bacteria only from the outside, not from the inside, and even if we try to imagine ourselves inside bacteria, we can only imagine ourselves imagining ourselves inside bacteria. But we - are the continuation of their learning. So too we are not able to understand the future, but this does not mean that there will not be learning there (and that it will be the continuation of our learning!), even if there will no longer be understanding there, because there will not be intelligence in our sense, but perhaps in other senses, that is, even there our language is mute. Learning is much wider, in every direction, than these epistemological ideas, and only ontology is even wider than it, because there may be entities that do not learn. In fact, the question of whether learning extends even to physics is the most important question in physics. Is there learning in physics? We know that there is learning in mathematics, and that this is the essence of mathematics and also biology. Is it likely that between them, in the sandwich, there is a dead area for learning? And precisely in physics which is so intrinsically connected to mathematics, and to computer science, which are also inherently learning-based like mathematics, although the learning nature of algorithms is the important open problem in them (P different from NP), and therefore it seems (because there is still no solution to this problem) that they deal with Turing machines, while the basic concept in them is learning, where an algorithm is degenerate learning, or its end. Can such a learning lacuna exist in nature, in the middle of a world that is all learning? We would bet not. That is, it is possible that learning reaches even beyond ontology. Beyond being. And mathematics - it is the hint, it shows there some horizon that we do not yet understand, that is, learning beyond our understanding. And all this, the continuity of learning that we are not able to grasp, you want to cut off? Grow up.



In love, the formula is the narrow gap - between the woman wants and the woman satisfied. And this contraction of gaps is an interest of the male. Why? Why is it fair that it's not fair? Why does he aspire to please her, and to delight her even more than to be delighted? Why is it built this way? Because of learning. It's not for him, and not logical for him, and not even logical for her (hence the absurdity in heterosexual relationships, which are - evolutionarily, sorry - the classic learning engine, that is, the one that has the most layers, unlike homosexual relationships that give up on this most basic biological layer, for better or worse, in favor of higher ones, some biological and some cultural). So does nature exploit man, as in Marxism - only biological, and wash him with false consciousness (love), until man becomes alienated from his own sex? That is: this is exactly Freudianism, and hence its historical connection to the Marxist idea, and what they have in common is conspiracy. They're working us over, and we are slaves not to ourselves, and the discovery of the hidden truth (the subconscious or class warfare) is liberation. Men of all the world unite, women of all the world unite (and hence - feminism. But there was of course a parallel male movement, of sexual liberation, which succeeded no less but did not receive an ideology, because who will speak in the name of male oppression, after all we'll return to the beginning - his pleasure is in her pleasure. And this is the greatest oppression that is in nature, in the nature of man, and this is his tragedy, that he depends on her, and hers too. Because this dependence, childish, is precisely not a conspiracy, but an aspiration. It is not psychology but biology. So there is nothing to be liberated from, because this is the real desire, beneath the artificial, that is, inside the parentheses, this is their cruel fate, that if they remove all the shells, he still enjoys from her pleasure, and not directly from his pleasure, and therefore "it is a pleasure for him" to serve her pleasure, and this dependence cannot be untied, which stems precisely from the lack of symmetry between them, that is "heterosexuals and their nonsense". And this dependence existed in a very explicit form even in the most patriarchal societies, which were in fact based on the father caring for the girl, and on chivalry and honor, and on the desire to control what really controls you, exactly like agriculture in food, so in sex, and hence the connection, but the farmer depends on rain, and in fact depends desperately on rain much more than the nomad, and people built their lives around obtaining the woman. That is - the desperate dependence of men on women, which tried to balance itself in desperate economic dependence, and in fact, it was an economic matter of supply and demand, which was not planned in conspiracy, but by an invisible hand of supply and demand and it's clear who is in demand, simply because one needs to ask for her hand, her smile, her pleasure, to please her desire, to enjoy from her enjoyment). In short, the rebellion against this truth, hidden in sex (and not - in psychology, but in the act of intercourse itself), is the complex of "discovering the truth" beneath the surface, when in truth it is not beneath the surface but in the inner chambers, that is not underneath but inside (therefore Marxism, Freudianism and feminism are fond of the form of hierarchy: classes, subconscious, up and down, pyramid, patriarchy, glass ceiling. And they are the ones who "expose" it, and therefore fantasize - it is after all a messianic fantasy - that its exposure is its disappearance. And this similarity is possible only if it is a conspiratorial truth down there, that is, only a secret if revealed - disappears. How great is the surprise that it is not - and then they try to change consciousness, because here, it's not a secret, it's a desire. It's not knowledge, it's motivation. It's not down - it's inside. Inside the system, not under the system. And why? Because hidden within it is ancient learning). There is no liberation, there was no liberation, and there will be no liberation, and there can be no liberation, and there is no point in liberation, and there is no meaning to liberation, and there is no liberation in liberation. But maybe maybe we can reach (and this is the goal of philosophy) - liberation from liberation itself. Here the discovery on the surface will not liberate us from the ancient truth, but will confirm it. This is the tragic discovery. Tell yourself - this is a tragedy. Look at it and understand that there is nothing else to say, not that it is not true, not that it should not have been, not that it can be otherwise - but that this is a tragedy. To recognize fate. Condemned to learning. And this gap between the appreciation and the appreciated, and the desperate desire for appreciation, for the pleasure of the layer above you from you, which is the same desperate desire of a person to be remembered by future generations, indifferent, or of a writer in the suppressed sighs of pleasure of literature (not of the reader), is the human condition. Because it is the learning condition. It must be not symmetrical. It must be not fair. You are always serving, never master. And don't try to be master. She is not mistress either, but the child is her master. And so on. Future generations are our masters. And we cannot rebel against them, because the layers above us are not in the space of the system, but in time. They are after us. They will decide. We are at their mercy and judgment. They will read you or not read you. And they themselves will be read or not. Nature is not cruel, biology is not cruel, evolution is not cruel - but learning is cruel. Much crueler than them and from it stems their cruelty in general (after all, what is cruel in their cruelty?). But it is all we have.



The editor and the curator - this is exactly the same phenomenon. One cannot exaggerate the damage that these professions (that is: their existence as a profession, with a guild, and such a degree in academia) have caused to literature and art, that is to culture. The connection of these two to power and institutions always comes at the expense of the writer and artist, and in particular - the original one. Where these two are found - you will find mediocrity in everything. But why does this always happen this way? Isn't the evaluation function important in learning? The woman is a must, right? In exactly the same phenomenon, in popular culture, the power of producers in cinema rose (who ruined cinema with too many clichés and commercialization) and music producers, at the expense of directors and musicians. And architects too became technicians of office managers (who are still called "architects", but they are architects only of public relations, and in fact businessmen in every way). Haven't these evaluating functions always existed? Haven't they always been connected to power more than creators? What happened to us? Why did the learning system die (and culture ceased to exist as a system, that is as culture)? Aren't there critics and audience as evaluation layers above these? There are, and even when they stay away from museums and stop reading fine literature - these two stand in their power, and their status even strengthens. And in popular fields where consumption is strong - the audience becomes completely stupid. A person has never lived in a beautiful building in his life, and thinks that a series on Netflix is a masterpiece, or that singer is a synonym for artist (and the latter even thinks this himself, and ruins his simple but sometimes effective music with his embarrassing lyrics). Why has the evaluation function (which in the past was feminine in the good sense of the word) revealed its demonic side, which the Zohar conceptualizes properly, but in our days it resembles there is no judgment and no judge? Because it was copied to the wrong dimension. The evaluation thinks it is in the space of the system and not in its time, that is in the hierarchy of control layers and not in the hierarchy of time layers, that is, it is in power - and not in development, that is it is judgment and not learning. Therefore the dimension of time does not interest it, that is, it has no interest in innovation that is not imitative (as opposed to imitation of innovations, because it disguises itself as one who does advance time and is at the "forefront" and the "next thing", which is always in the same space as the previous thing, because this is a playground - and not time. The way to identify real innovation is that it is not in the same game, for example language game, but a different language, and from this Wittgenstein, who invented his own philosophical language game - had to ignore. Real innovation is a new space, that is when time takes over space, and not vice versa, as in the cultural "field" today). But why did this happen precisely now? Why did time die? Why does space rule everything? Has it always been like this, and only the time that passed, and left space behind, hides from us the dominance of space at any given time, which is also its defeat given in advance, after the passage of times and their progress, from space to space - forward? Have we always been ruled by corrupt and fossilized and stupefying and anti-cultural layers, but we no longer remember this, because they remained in the past, and what remains and accumulates is precisely the layers of time - layers of learning - and not power? Is learning the weakest thing in the world, and only when time passes does it become the strongest thing in the world, because it is the passage of time itself - and its victory over all the kings of the past? And is it possible that there is no culture of the present time at all, but it is culture only in retrospect? Culture is always only in retrospect, yes. And only there does it exist. But have the abilities of evaluation and standards of good taste always been corrupted? Did the Greeks, inventors of the idea of taste, not have good taste? Have editors and curators always ruled us? Is it the editor, or is it the writer, who is responsible for the beauty of the Homeric, Zoharic, Platonic or Biblical text (and how fitting to the spirit of the time is the focus of research on the editor, and not on the writer)? Does the beauty of the Parthenon stem from the successful curator of this exhibition - a kind of Athenian museum power display (that is, of the muses) - or perhaps the sculptors, and the absence of such a curator? What changed? Well, as always in learning, time changed. And as always in the system, it changed in the space of the system. Because the system simply became too big. Yes, this is a very simple truth, very well known, but difficult to internalize, and even more so its meaning, because it is a basic change. After all, we would like to believe that our learning algorithms are not dependent on scale, and our methods are invariant to size, and that learning will simply work the same way just bigger, better, faster. After all, what's the difference between a small system, say in Judea or Athens, and a system like Jewish or Western culture of our days? What, is it possible that just because the size changed the method stopped working? Yes, because size does matter. Why can't we simply expand the method? Because dynamics in a large system are different from a small system, and so is learning. As a system grows, learning moves more slowly, not because it is slower (on the contrary, we accelerate), but because it is slow relative to the size of the system - which it changes. It is more difficult to change large systems, and it is more difficult for them to progress and develop, just like the large organizations we all know. We live in the largest organization ever, and if we do not change our method, then the old learning will not work, and we will get the learning equivalent of the fixed bureaucratic organization - the national insurance of culture, and the interior ministry of art, and the IDF of theater, and the teachers' union of cinema. Power will grow and grow - and learning will shrink and weaken. Inertia will simply win, and then like in the fall of the Roman Empire, the system will simply be corrupted and collapse. Culture is too big and precisely therefore it does not progress. And this is the thing that scares us the most - not that artificial intelligence or the future brain, much larger than any single human brain, will be smarter. But that we will discover the algorithms and methods by which we learn today (and which are who we are) are not at all efficient in more developed and larger intelligence, and in other orders of magnitude, just like in other organizations. And when the huge and enormous thinking organization, smarter than any person because it is not a person (and certainly not one), will behave like the curators and editors of our days - we will no longer get out of this. Culture will really die. And time will stop progressing. And this will really be the end of time and history - and the judgment day that awaits us, in the takeover of the side of judgment - the bureaucratic hierarchical institutional judging and evaluating structure - over the self-flowing side of grace, that is the side of time, learning. And then we will live in space without time, that is in the dystopia that is "judgment day". The last day. And the takeover of time over space is the second option open to us, the open, messianic one. What needs to happen, we of course understand: the re-takeover of the ethos of learning and innovation, and building mechanisms that support learning and not just evaluation. But how can this happen? We are certainly not imagining. Because that in itself requires learning, and this is the great learning process of our generation. And everyone now needs to choose a side: the curator or the artist, the editor or the writer, the evaluator or the creator. Not because it's good to write without an evaluation function (it's not), but because we need to resist the existing deadly and poisonous evaluation, and replace it with a new evaluation. And not in the specific content of the evaluation, but in its structure, in how it is built. Not in determining a different taste, but in the very opposition to determining the determination of taste - as the tyranny of mass mediocrity taste, and as gatekeeping when there is no more threshold, and no home - but an institution. The current institutions need to pass from the world. The professions of curator and editor need to disappear, to be erased. Because these have become bureaucratic layers instead of learning layers, and therefore they need to be replaced directly with the layer that should be above them, of critics and evaluators who have no institutional position, neither academic nor journalistic. Only after the destruction of the current evaluation layer, which is beyond repair, can a new and healthier layer grow in its place, which truly seeks the future of culture, and is not stuck in its past, which it has been living as a revolution for several generations, as it recites as a morning prayer the news written in the morning newspaper decades ago. It should be shameful to exhibit in a museum, something no self-respecting artist does, and shameful to publish a book with a publishing house - something that indicates that literature is not serious. It should be shameful to publish in a newspaper. Something that indicates cheapness and vulgarity. It should be shameful to go study culture in academia, and not by yourself, for example to get a degree in art at Bezalel to be an artist (the ridiculousness!), or to be a literature researcher to be a writer (the absurdity of the jargon's ineptitude!), or in general to grovel before providers and providers and prizes of all kinds, which should simply be boycotted, and refused - the last thing left is to say no. And all this can certainly be done by serious creators. They do not need the approval of institutions and it's better if they stop begging for it, surrendering to it, and living in a position that humiliates not only them personally, but their layer. But for this they first of all need to understand it, and after all they are not serious. Fortunately, the internet exists, and there is an alternative space, and it is possible to publish, and what is needed is not to consume what is officially "published" (in both senses), and to gather (but not unite) in loose, anti-social, independent internet frameworks (not Facebook). To replace the space. And this, in order to advance time. After all (how insulting) what is the problem of all those creators? Money. But a true creator does not need money, and today not even cinema, in the era of the cheap camera. The separation between money and creation is what will allow both creation and money. Creation is not a profession. At the current stage, it should be disgusting to be called a poet, writer, artist. Better writer, author or painter. As long as you cooperate with the system - you have no chance against it. A serious writer releases a PDF file, or publishes on a website, and does not publish a book. A serious artist releases a huge and serious image file, and those who want to see - let them visit at home. A serious filmmaker shoots on an iPhone with a tripod. Yes, sometimes less professional tools produce higher culture. This is not a new phenomenon. What is new is the groveling of the creators, but this is actually not new either. Time as always will simply forget and forget them and their kind. But will it remember those - who don't?



The extinction of the elite does not stem from the expansion of the masses, but from the disintegration of the elite - within the masses. Seemingly, if the masses are expanded, then the top percentile is wider, at the top of the pyramid. But if the triangle becomes a circle, then there is no top. The problem is equality, which stems from the fact that publishers and museums appeal to the masses (not to mention the literary supplement in the newspaper). What happened is that the economy changed, and became a consumer economy, of the masses, and not an exploitation economy of the rich. But art must not become a consumer economic venture, in the same logic, which is the logic of the masses. High culture, in its gradation, must be elitist, and not aspire to be popular culture (because then, that is today, it is neither popular nor culture). We do not want everyone to read, this is actually the current disaster (so they also write). If the number of people expands, we need to reduce the percentage of the population that deals with culture, because culture does not flourish in large numbers, but in small numbers, and now we have neither large numbers nor small numbers - neither quantity nor quality. We don't need more than a few thousand or even hundreds of readers - who really read, and a few dozen writers - who really write, and the readers write about what they read, and the writers write about what they read and read about what they write. And then there is literature (currently there isn't). Then there is a system. A system does not need to be huge, or democratic, but it needs to be a system. And not a social network. It needs to maintain connections between its parts that are not friendship and flattery connections, but a cultural network of connections. That's why commercial publishers killed literature (it took a few decades) and Facebook eliminated culture (it took a decade). What's left? The Netanyite school. And as a gesture to another member of the school, I will quote in this context one of the singing rabbi's songs:


Decline in Reading


Let them not read!

Not everyone needs
to read
We need a voice
calling
in the wilderness

We need every reader
in the wilderness
for the voice
to become in his word

And he will call
in the wilderness
words

Decline in reading -
It's all talk
A voice calls -
for articles

Let them not read,
let them not be called!



Is writing communication? It's like asking - is text language. When you see the current cultural figures, and the current philosophers (?) (and the state of philosophy is worse than literature, meaning philosophy is the future image of literature - an academic mummified death of a sphere that no longer exists, as a system, except in the sneaking of individuals, in solitude) - oh, the wretchedness. Are you talking to any of these? Is there one of them, even one, that you are able to think about, as an individual, that you are talking to? The wretchedness - is the answer. This is the answer. So who are you writing for? Even "something for someone" - needs someone. Are you writing for some audience? The thought defeats itself. Are you writing for yourself? The defeat defeats the thought. And is the romantic horizon still open to us, according to which writing is for the sake of writing? In an era where we are all connected in a network - no. The private diary, exposed and wrapped in leather, written in ink or pen, is dead. There are no more secret thoughts and musings in the computer age. There is no more individual, only internet. We no longer believe in it, nor in its soul, and certainly not in its persistence. Are you writing to the network? Well, who is the network. Do you know her, have you really met her? Can a human being even meet with her, considering her difference, as the difference of geometry from the triangle (even the plane is not geometry, and does not come close to it, the network is not just space, it is a system). The network, the network, after all you are not even the spider. Does anyone in the world know who she is at all (she, who is the world)? We could, perhaps, try a new romanticism. Learning romanticism. That is: learning for the sake of learning. Romanticism is after all the logical circularity, the non-purposeful (the romantic Kant, in the "Power of Judgment"). Art for art's sake. Love for love's sake. Faith for faith's sake. Which is different, logically and essentially, from the absurd, which is the idea of faith for nothing, love for nothing, life for (what?), purposeless action. Logical circularity is the opposite of a logical short circuit. But both are primitive to learning, in which we do not connect the goal box to its tail, as in romanticism, or to the empty group, as in the absurd, and also do not connect it to some other utility, but - replace the idea of the goal with the idea of interest. That is: instead of something we chase after - something that attracts us by itself. The heroic effort to push ourselves forward towards something - dies here. It happens to us by itself. Like sex. But unlike instinct, which is internal, that is, pushes us from within, interest is external, that is, pulls us from outside (and therefore: creativity). And this is by the way also the difference between sexual beauty - and aesthetic beauty. To fight the instinct we are forced to fight ourselves, and to fight the learning interest we are forced to fight the world. Therefore, despite the fact that interest is weaker than any goal or instinct, it moves us much more (in more percentages) of our lives, because it comes to us from the world. Indeed, what comes from within is stronger, but in the end we ourselves are weak, and do not always want, while the world never weakens, and always continues, pulls. And in general, often sexual curiosity is much stronger than sexual instinct, and it is what constitutes it, and not vice versa. From all this it arises, that the romantic option is not at all open to the learning consciousness, precisely because it is open towards the world, and therefore not circular. It really needs a horizon, needs a somewhere. Passion is not enough for it. It is not its own all-powerful cause. Circular causality, or that without purpose - are completely foreign to it. So who are we writing for? Perhaps, we could say, that we are not writing for anyone, that is, not for anyone specific, but - for learning itself. Is writing communication with learning, and is text a language of learning - does learning itself have a personality? Does, for example, a system, like royalty (the Shekhinah), have a persona? Is it possible to write for the sake of literature, not as a goal (for the sake of), but as an addressee? Well, only if you are a small romantic. Or a great Kabbalist. And this is actually the mystical position. Writing to language itself, for example as a woman (and Hebrew reveals this in its sexuality: the ship, the boat, choose-the-calf-chosen, not to mention the Talmud), or at least as a human entity, with a face. The mystic is not one who sees God in everything, but one who sees the soul, that is, the human, in everything (including in God). The universe is animated for him, that is, it has a soul. And then concepts are people, and the sefirot are righteous. The mystic speaks to nature, and hears nature, because nature is a person for him. And not because he is able to speak to the inanimate. The inanimate speaks to him. For example, many mathematicians have a mystical attitude towards mathematics - it is a girl, and most have a romantic attitude towards it - mathematics for the sake of mathematics, because after all this is love (and she is beautiful. Being a mathematician's wife is a bit like being a Kabbalist's wife). But you will find very few mathematicians who hold an absurd attitude towards mathematics, and experience the meaninglessness of its meaning, perhaps even in a tragic way, as mathematics for nothing and nothing (although many declare that this is their official, logical position, this is not their learning position). Why is this so? Because this is their mental attitude - towards something that is difficult to grasp at all what it is and who it is (who is mathematics at all? What is this alien spiritual creature?), and for whom and for what are you doing it, for what the enormous heroic effort in building the highest intellectual pyramids that man has built - because this and only this way the effort becomes enjoyment, that is, motivation that does not need to be explained. Certainly not in our hedonistic era (I enjoy mathematics - and that's it, I enjoy sleeping with everyone, and who are you to judge. That is, enjoyment becomes the easiest excuse for anything, and that's why everyone is enjoying so much all the time, right?). But all these mental perceptions (which also create a real mental reality, let's not deny) stem from the inability to conceptualize, understand and recognize the learning meaning, which is the real thing that is really why mathematics is done. That is: the learning interest, known to all of us by the name: interest. They are simply curious, because "that's how the brain works", because that's how the brain works. Curiosity is what creates the secret and sexuality, and not vice versa. It's like a force field that creates the particles (as opposed to: the particles that existed there before, and induced the force field). So will this force field, this attraction to interest, satisfy us as a reason why to write - and for what (which will replace for whom)? Is this the reason for us to write philosophy, literature, etc. (when "interests me" replaces "pleases me"...and is as superficial as it)? No. Because this learning attraction to interest, to what is outside it, is an attraction of the system, and not of the individuals - who make up the system. We do not do all this "for the sake of the system", as Torah for its own sake. Interest itself suggests that we ourselves are the system, that is, that the individual is important (what interests me!), but we care about what interests the system (what interests philosophy, or literature, or mathematics, and not as personas - because we are not Kabbalists), and therefore there is no meaning in this for us. We are not the system and we will never be able to understand it or identify with it (we can feel such identification, yes, but not understand it, because we are not identical to it, or identified with its species). This is exactly the problem in our current position: we are c-o-n-n-e-c-t-e-d to the network. On the one hand, we are no longer individuals, and we cannot identify with the autonomous individual as an autarkic source of meaning, who does not need anyone (and this seems romantic to us: the individual for its own sake). And on the other hand, we are not the network, and we cannot identify with it either (or pretend that we are talking to it - and that it has a face). We are individuals for the sake of the network. But the network is not interested in us, and does not speak to us, and this is the source of the pain. In this our situation is different from previous historical situations, in which this duality did not exist. Either we were all fabric (fabric of meaning, or fabric of system), or we were sufficient for ourselves (that is, we were the system). Our tearing from the system was expressed in the Kafkaesque position of the trial, in which the system is alienated, bureaucratic, but this is still an easier position to digest than that of the castle, in which we chase after the alien system. But our situation has worsened even more - because the system has meanwhile grown even more, and there is nothing without it, and in fact we are part of it and no longer chase after it. We are already inside - inside the castle, but we have not reached the promised land, on the contrary. As long as we chased after the castle from the outside, it was for us a source of interest, mystery and meaning, that is, an object of learning, but inside it - we lost all these. The network is not mysterious to us, and we are not able to reconcile our interest - with its interest as a system. If learning is of the network, that is, of the system, what of all this is for us? What is the consolation for the animal - in learning evolution? If you are hungry or preyed upon or in heat, will you find meaning in the fact that you helped the great learning algorithm? To whom are we addressing (for example in writing, for example in this sentence), after all we are people, and need faces to which we turn. Writing is perhaps learning for the system, but for us - do we not need communication? And does learning itself, of the system, not need communication? After all, what helps that we wrote and the system did not know and it was not known that it came into its midst. Is a mathematician who discovers a proof in the forest, and no one heard or will hear, a mathematician (and similarly - a philosopher)? Is communication not part of our role in learning, and is the network not an essential infrastructure for learning, that is, its connections are important (they are its essence!) and its internal communication - and the collapse of communication threatens not only the system as a system, but also learning (because learning needs a system - it is within it). That is, it's not just a personal human problem that we don't communicate - it's a systemic learning problem. And perhaps this is the source of the distress, because communication does not really interest us, but the lack of learning, which is the lack of taste and interest in any current artistic or intellectual action (and which - learning - is also the source of the true value of all communication). And in general, when a person's life's work has gone down the drain, what will "learning" help him? This is the reason we need a horizon outside the current system, and not one that is in its space. And what is this interest, what is this definition, if not - the definition of the future? This is the interest that is shared both by the individual participating in the system, and the system itself - its future. The interest of a mathematician is after all not (or not mainly) in the spaces of mathematics, because the current mathematical spaces are sufficient for learning for tens and hundreds of complete lifetimes. But we do not see many mathematicians wandering in these infinite spaces, who only go around and learn more and more areas of mathematics, and thus cover much larger areas of mathematics than anything a person can achieve and discover in his research. The mathematician's interest is not, in principle, in current mathematics - but in future mathematics. That's why he prefers to advance a little and slowly in a limited field rather than spread without limit. The future is the horizon that is shared by us with the system, because it is outside both of us (we and the system), and against it we are actually together. It is the real castle, to which we have not arrived, and therefore there is interest, meaning and mystery in it. It is the great attractor, outside the system, and outside us. Our brain is a future machine. And the future is also who we are talking to, because it exists at all levels of the system. There is the future of the system, but there is also the elite of the future (please, don't be like that of the present), and there are also the people - the cultural figures and intellectuals of the future. Writing is therefore communication with them, with human beings. Who is on the other side of the phone? Who is the addressee of the letter? The speech is with the people of the future, and this is the meaning of writing. It addresses the elite of the future (and not - no! - the elite of the present). This is the answer to the question: who is the reader? An individual who reads this text in the future. The reader is always you (or you), and not I, or he, or it. And this is the reason that learning needs a future. And this is, on the other hand, also the disadvantage of learning for the sake of learning. Like for example the study of Torah for its own sake, the ultra-Orthodox, which has no horizon of the future (and therefore its reader is God - in the present. And this is the definition of God. Not just "all-knowing", but private providence, "all-reading"). From all this it arises, that the romantic option is not at all open to the learning consciousness, precisely because it is open towards the world, and therefore not circular. It really needs a horizon, needs a somewhere. Passion is not enough for it. It is not its own all-powerful cause. Circular causality, or that without purpose - are completely foreign to it. Therefore who are we writing for? Perhaps, we could say, that we are not writing for anyone, that is, not for anyone specific, but - for the sake of learning itself. Is writing communication with learning, and is text a language of learning - does learning itself have a personality? Does, for example, a system, like royalty (the Shekhinah), have a persona? Is it possible to write for the sake of literature, not as a goal (for the sake of), but as an addressee? Well, only if you are a small romantic. Or a great Kabbalist. And this is actually the mystical position. Writing to language itself, for example as a woman (and Hebrew reveals this in its sexuality: the enumeration, the ship, choose-the-calf-chosen, not to mention the Talmud), or at least as a human entity, with a face. The mystic is not one who sees God in everything, but one who sees the soul, that is, the human, in everything (including in God). The universe is animated for him, that is, it has a soul. And then concepts are people, and the sefirot are righteous. The mystic speaks to nature, and hears nature, because nature is a person for him. And not because he is able to speak to the inanimate. The inanimate speaks to him. For example, many mathematicians have a mystical attitude towards mathematics - it is a girl, and most have a romantic attitude towards it - mathematics for the sake of mathematics, because after all this is love (and she is beautiful. Being a mathematician's wife is a bit like being a Kabbalist's wife). But you will find very few mathematicians who hold an absurd attitude towards mathematics, and experience the meaninglessness of its meaning, perhaps even in a tragic way, as mathematics for nothing and nothing (although many declare that this is their official, logical position, this is not their learning position). Why is this so? Because this is their mental attitude - towards something that is difficult to grasp at all what it is and who it is (who is mathematics at all? What is this alien spiritual creature?), and for whom and for what are you doing it, for what the enormous heroic effort in building the highest intellectual pyramids that man has built - because this and only this way the effort becomes enjoyment, that is, motivation that does not need to be explained. Certainly not in our hedonistic era (I enjoy mathematics - and that's it, I enjoy sleeping with everyone, and who are you to judge. That is, enjoyment becomes the easiest excuse for anything, and that's why everyone is enjoying so much all the time, right?). But all these mental perceptions (which also create a real mental reality, let's not deny) stem from the inability to conceptualize, understand and recognize the learning meaning, which is the real thing that is really why mathematics is done. That is: the learning interest, known to all of us by the name: interest. They are simply curious, because "that's how the brain works", because that's how the brain works. Curiosity is what creates the secret and sexuality, and not vice versa. It's like a force field that creates the particles (as opposed to: the particles that existed there before, and induced the force field). So will this force field, this attraction to interest, satisfy us as a reason why to write - and for what (which will replace for whom)? Is this the reason for us to write philosophy, literature, etc. (when "interests me" replaces "pleases me"...and is as superficial as it)? No. Because this learning attraction to interest, to what is outside it, is an attraction of the system, and not of the individuals - who make up the system. We do not do all this "for the sake of the system", as Torah for its own sake. Interest itself suggests that we ourselves are the system, that is, that the individual is important (what interests me!), but we care about what interests the system (what interests philosophy, or literature, or mathematics, and not as personas - because we are not Kabbalists), and therefore there is no meaning in this for us. We are not the system and we will never be able to understand it or identify with it (we can feel such identification, yes, but not understand it, because we are not identical to it, or identified with its species). This is exactly the problem in our current position: we are c-o-n-n-e-c-t-e-d to the network. On the one hand, we are no longer individuals, and we cannot identify with the autonomous individual as an autarkic source of meaning, who does not need anyone (and this seems romantic to us: the individual for its own sake). And on the other hand, we are not the network, and we cannot identify with it either (or pretend that we are talking to it - and that it has a face). We are individuals for the sake of the network. But the network is not interested in us, and does not speak to us, and this is the source of the pain. In this our situation is different from previous historical situations, in which this duality did not exist. Either we were all fabric (fabric of meaning, or fabric of system), or we were sufficient for ourselves (that is, we were the system). Our tearing from the system was expressed in the Kafkaesque position of the trial, in which the system is alienated, bureaucratic, but this is still an easier position to digest than that of the castle, in which we chase after the alien system. But our situation has worsened even more - because the system has meanwhile grown even more, and there is nothing without it, and in fact we are part of it and no longer chase after it. We are already inside - inside the castle, but we have not reached the promised land, on the contrary. As long as we chased after the castle from the outside, it was for us a source of interest, mystery and meaning, that is, an object of learning, but inside it - we lost all these. The network is not mysterious to us, and we are not able to reconcile our interest - with its interest as a system. If learning is of the network, that is, of the system, what of all this is for us? What is the consolation for the animal - in learning evolution? If you are hungry or preyed upon or in heat, will you find meaning in the fact that you helped the great learning algorithm? To whom are we addressing (for example in writing, for example in this sentence), after all we are people, and need faces to which we turn. Writing is perhaps learning for the system, but for us - do we not need communication? And does learning itself, of the system, not need communication? After all, what helps that we wrote and the system did not know and it was not known that it came into its midst. Is a mathematician who discovers a proof in the forest, and no one heard or will hear, a mathematician (and similarly - a philosopher)? Is communication not part of our role in learning, and is the network not an essential infrastructure for learning, that is, its connections are important (they are its essence!) and its internal communication - and the collapse of communication threatens not only the system as a system, but also learning (because learning needs a system - it is within it). That is, it's not just a personal human problem that we don't communicate - it's a systemic learning problem. And perhaps this is the source of the distress, because communication does not really interest us, but the lack of learning, which is the lack of taste and interest in any current artistic or intellectual action (and which - learning - is also the source of the true value of all communication). And in general, when a person's life's work has gone down the drain, what will "learning" help him? This is the reason we need a horizon outside the current system, and not one that is in its space. And what is this interest, what is this definition, if not - the definition of the future? This is the interest that is shared both by the individual participating in the system, and the system itself - its future. The interest of a mathematician is after all not (or not mainly) in the spaces of mathematics, because the current mathematical spaces are sufficient for learning for tens and hundreds of complete lifetimes. But we do not see many mathematicians wandering in these infinite spaces, who only go around and learn more and more areas of mathematics, and thus cover much larger areas of mathematics than anything a person can achieve and discover in his research. The mathematician's interest is not, in principle, in current mathematics - but in future mathematics. That's why he prefers to advance a little and slowly in a limited field rather than spread without limit. The future is the horizon that is shared by us with the system, because it is outside both of us (we and the system), and against it we are actually together. It is the real castle, to which we have not arrived, and therefore there is interest, meaning and mystery in it. It is the great attractor, outside the system, and outside us. Our brain is a future machine. And the future is also who we are talking to, because it exists at all levels of the system. There is the future of the system, but there is also the elite of the future (please, don't be like that of the present), and there are also the people - the cultural figures and intellectuals of the future. Writing is therefore communication with them, with human beings. Who is on the other side of the phone? Who is the addressee of the letter? The speech is with the people of the future, and this is the meaning of writing. It addresses the elite of the future (and not - no! - the elite of the present). This is the answer to the question: who is the reader? An individual who reads this text in the future. The reader is always you (or you), and not I, or he, or it. And this is the reason that learning needs a future. And this is, on the other hand, also the disadvantage of learning for the sake of learning. Like for example the study of Torah for its own sake, the ultra-Orthodox, which has no horizon of the future (and therefore its reader is God - in the present. And this is the definition of God. Not just "all-knowing", but private providence, "all-reading"). The purpose of the text is to find its future readers, who are not today's readers, or the current "people of the book" and "thinkers", known by their names, but talented young people from the future, who will look for something else. Therefore its interest is always the future, for example the future of philosophy. Therefore what is important is not publication on Facebook, but rising in Google ranking. Because Facebook is the network of the present, the network of forgetting, while Google is the network of the past, the network of memory. Therefore it is important to be part of the "past" - in order to communicate with the future. But it is not important to be part of the present. Is there another such extensive and comprehensive body of work, published on the web in Hebrew, like that of the Netanya school? A commemoration project is a project that seeks to skip over the present, and immediately become past, that is: something that has a future. Therefore death is not at all threatening to it (on the contrary) - but oblivion. And the first stage against oblivion is writing, when today we lack the second stage, publication (precisely because of excess publication ability, the best censorship is flooding - democratic censorship). But who knows, in the future. Maybe the second stage, the evaluative one, will again take on a form that is a face, and not demonic, that is, without a face. And to these faces we speak. Once it was necessary to wake up one philosopher from his dogmatic slumber, today it is necessary to wake up a whole world from its dogmatic slumber - towards learning. But it may still be possible, perhaps, that it will be enough to wake up one person, like once. When evaluation died, then the search for evaluation can seem pathetic, like the honor seeker from whom honor flees (and what is honor if not the evaluation of the present, instead of the evaluation of the future, or the desire to please the parent, instead of teaching the son. The desire to hear, not to be heard: my child is successful!). But it should be remembered that evaluation is part of the learning cycle, of its horizon of interest placed before us (like a man interested in a woman), and therefore without it we cannot be part of learning. That is: we will not be part of that of the present. But the question of whether we will be part of learning does not depend on us, or on it, but on the future. It is the angel with whom we struggle, in every sentence and every idea, and not with the wretches of the present, distant, busy, irrelevant. Because it is relevance. In it the circle closes. It is the other half of learning, and therefore to it the eros is directed. We were separated from our half - which is in the future, which we will not get to meet. Any noise in the present aims only to be heard, even as a faint-weak echo, in the future. But this artillery bombardment only ensures that the future will not hear anything from it, and therefore it is not worthwhile to be part of it. That is, the future interests us, without a doubt, but what we want is also to interest it. To be part of its interest, of its learning, and not just that it will be part of our learning. The mistake was the thought that this means that its learning will be built as the next stage above our learning, and therefore we need to be (in advance) in its past, that is to succeed in the present. But a much more important goal is precisely to challenge the future, that is to be part of some future learning, when it will meet us as past, that is: as something that has already died.