![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I amAzathoth! Known as the "Blind Idiot God", the center of all cycles known as Azathoth is the great void itself, infinite creation and inescapable oblivion made one. The Great God is without ego, as it has been embodied in a seperate consciousness as Azathoth has cast off the curse of self-awareness. Surrounded by the host of flautist servitors, piping the songs of the unknowable, Azathoth is not to be known by his aspirants. That is the purpose of another God... |
 |
| Which Great Old One are you? | |
I amAzathoth! Known as the "Blind Idiot God", the center of all cycles known as Azathoth is the great void itself, infinite creation and inescapable oblivion made one. The Great God is without ego, as it has been embodied in a seperate consciousness as Azathoth has cast off the curse of self-awareness. Surrounded by the host of flautist servitors, piping the songs of the unknowable, Azathoth is not to be known by his aspirants. That is the purpose of another God... |
 |
| Which Great Old One are you? | |
Just had an interview for the Lishma program at Camp Ramah of CA. I think it went reasonably. ONly problem is that I have a wedding to go to the day the program starts- which may detract from my likelihood of acceptance. I may be able to arrive late that day (depending on the time of the wedding, but needless to say, teh 3 hour time difference may work very Well in my favor here), or the next day (far from ideal, but possibly acceptable). I really would love to do this program. I hope that a. they accept me, and b. I can work things out to their and my satisfaction.
OK, should eat lunch and get to serious work on my paper. Blargh: too much work to do. SOme vacation...
OK, should eat lunch and get to serious work on my paper. Blargh: too much work to do. SOme vacation...
Just had an interview for the Lishma program at Camp Ramah of CA. I think it went reasonably. ONly problem is that I have a wedding to go to the day the program starts- which may detract from my likelihood of acceptance. I may be able to arrive late that day (depending on the time of the wedding, but needless to say, teh 3 hour time difference may work very Well in my favor here), or the next day (far from ideal, but possibly acceptable). I really would love to do this program. I hope that a. they accept me, and b. I can work things out to their and my satisfaction.
OK, should eat lunch and get to serious work on my paper. Blargh: too much work to do. SOme vacation...
OK, should eat lunch and get to serious work on my paper. Blargh: too much work to do. SOme vacation...
Note: Weave W. Smith into Maimonides paper upon return to school. It seems productive, if I can find the right quote.
This paper is really rather humorous: I've referenced one essay we read for Liturgy already, and Smith is something we read for Studying Sacred Texts (which I liked, although much of the rest of my class had a strong distaste for it). But well, the essay is on interpretation and the responsibility to the traditions in which/from which one is working, just in reference to Maimonides. It does bring up that question with which I was toying a while ago in regard to Studying Sacred TExts class and those authors whom I read who were taking the text and giving it very new and unprecedented interpretations in order to find in it the acceptance that they wanted (the ones we read had to do with homosexuality). Maimonides seems to be doing much the same thing. It seems more tasteful and less abrupt and strange to us because we expect it, it's what our teachers tell us, and it's the harmonization of Jewish tradition with a tradition that is not quite dead, but dead to our daily lives (outside of certain enthusiastic philosophy students and those who are involved in their lives, perhaps), rather than with secular life that goes on around us now. But then, Maimonides was just as revolutionary to the tradition when he wrote, if not more so, and it might have been seen as just as much if not more of a betrayal by those dedicated purely to the tradition. Now it's part of the tradition, and therefore no longer a threat. Maybe if we remembered that process, and kept it active in our minds, newer interpretations that might be eually radical would be more acceptable or at least less threatening for us.
This paper is really rather humorous: I've referenced one essay we read for Liturgy already, and Smith is something we read for Studying Sacred Texts (which I liked, although much of the rest of my class had a strong distaste for it). But well, the essay is on interpretation and the responsibility to the traditions in which/from which one is working, just in reference to Maimonides. It does bring up that question with which I was toying a while ago in regard to Studying Sacred TExts class and those authors whom I read who were taking the text and giving it very new and unprecedented interpretations in order to find in it the acceptance that they wanted (the ones we read had to do with homosexuality). Maimonides seems to be doing much the same thing. It seems more tasteful and less abrupt and strange to us because we expect it, it's what our teachers tell us, and it's the harmonization of Jewish tradition with a tradition that is not quite dead, but dead to our daily lives (outside of certain enthusiastic philosophy students and those who are involved in their lives, perhaps), rather than with secular life that goes on around us now. But then, Maimonides was just as revolutionary to the tradition when he wrote, if not more so, and it might have been seen as just as much if not more of a betrayal by those dedicated purely to the tradition. Now it's part of the tradition, and therefore no longer a threat. Maybe if we remembered that process, and kept it active in our minds, newer interpretations that might be eually radical would be more acceptable or at least less threatening for us.
Note: Weave W. Smith into Maimonides paper upon return to school. It seems productive, if I can find the right quote.
This paper is really rather humorous: I've referenced one essay we read for Liturgy already, and Smith is something we read for Studying Sacred Texts (which I liked, although much of the rest of my class had a strong distaste for it). But well, the essay is on interpretation and the responsibility to the traditions in which/from which one is working, just in reference to Maimonides. It does bring up that question with which I was toying a while ago in regard to Studying Sacred TExts class and those authors whom I read who were taking the text and giving it very new and unprecedented interpretations in order to find in it the acceptance that they wanted (the ones we read had to do with homosexuality). Maimonides seems to be doing much the same thing. It seems more tasteful and less abrupt and strange to us because we expect it, it's what our teachers tell us, and it's the harmonization of Jewish tradition with a tradition that is not quite dead, but dead to our daily lives (outside of certain enthusiastic philosophy students and those who are involved in their lives, perhaps), rather than with secular life that goes on around us now. But then, Maimonides was just as revolutionary to the tradition when he wrote, if not more so, and it might have been seen as just as much if not more of a betrayal by those dedicated purely to the tradition. Now it's part of the tradition, and therefore no longer a threat. Maybe if we remembered that process, and kept it active in our minds, newer interpretations that might be eually radical would be more acceptable or at least less threatening for us.
This paper is really rather humorous: I've referenced one essay we read for Liturgy already, and Smith is something we read for Studying Sacred Texts (which I liked, although much of the rest of my class had a strong distaste for it). But well, the essay is on interpretation and the responsibility to the traditions in which/from which one is working, just in reference to Maimonides. It does bring up that question with which I was toying a while ago in regard to Studying Sacred TExts class and those authors whom I read who were taking the text and giving it very new and unprecedented interpretations in order to find in it the acceptance that they wanted (the ones we read had to do with homosexuality). Maimonides seems to be doing much the same thing. It seems more tasteful and less abrupt and strange to us because we expect it, it's what our teachers tell us, and it's the harmonization of Jewish tradition with a tradition that is not quite dead, but dead to our daily lives (outside of certain enthusiastic philosophy students and those who are involved in their lives, perhaps), rather than with secular life that goes on around us now. But then, Maimonides was just as revolutionary to the tradition when he wrote, if not more so, and it might have been seen as just as much if not more of a betrayal by those dedicated purely to the tradition. Now it's part of the tradition, and therefore no longer a threat. Maybe if we remembered that process, and kept it active in our minds, newer interpretations that might be eually radical would be more acceptable or at least less threatening for us.
.