METAPHYSICS OF DAVID BIRNBAUM
PHILOSOPHY OF DAVID BIRNBAUM
“Va-yomer Elokim: ‘Na-ase adam b’tzalmeinu, k’dmusaynu…
…Zachar u-Nekeyvah barah otam”
[Bereshith 1:26-28]
“And Elokim said: ‘Let us make Man in Our image,
as Our likeness’
…Male and Female, He created them”
[Genesis 1:26-28]
So, respectfully, while our proposal may be revolutionary,
it does happen to fit elegantly with the Biblical text –
and certainly perfectly with Rashi’s Commentary:
i.e., Rashi says to read the text as:
“God says to his ANGELS
(read: Metaphysical Potentials – author):
‘Let Us make Man in Our Image’”
*
So, indeed, one can make the case that Rashi’s Commentary actually IS our formulation.
(and it may be somewhat challenging to excommunicate Rashi)
*
As with the Exodus prooftext: “Eheyeh Asher Eheyeh”
“I WILL BE THAT WHICH I WILL BE”
for the core proposal of
God as the God of Potential, the prooftext here is, as well, eerily on-the-mark.
Once you discern it, it sort of ‘jumps-out-at-you’.
*
Now, the dominant potentiality thread in MALE may be
(51 % Quest-for-Advancement; 49% Quest-for-Fulfillment – as overarching, but certainly not exclusive, dynamics)
and
the dominant potentiality thread in FEMALE may be the obverse side of coin
(51% Quest-for-FULFILLMENT; 49% Quest-for-ADVANCEMENT – as overarching, but certainly not exclusive, dynamics)
– but that tiny percentage swing in orientation somewhere along the trajectory is what ultimately makes all-the-difference
(This one last sentence should keep psychologists
busy for a 1,000 years or so…)
*