Podcast page

009* Brief overview of book “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”

The Austin Cry: be the Cause, join the Movement, the PaRDeS Universal ReConstitution for Washington and World Repair!

Visit my websites www.PaRDeSism.com,  www.Ric4USH21.com, podcasts with pdf, or at iTunes and other platforms.

I have a calling, born out of enthusiasm; a book to deliver, “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”; and a job to get done, place the cornerstone of civilization for the III Millennium!

Title: “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”

Subtitle: “(PaRDeS primevalism ~ treeseeding our original common-sense on the Bible’s Creation Story 1:1-2:3; Universal World ReConstitution, from Crisis City to PaRaDiSe Earth)”

Author: Ricardo Turullols-Bonilla.

Where: At Amazon, in paperback and digital, in English and Spanish translation.

What we create, here and now, reconstitutes the universe!

009* Brief overview of book “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”

Dear Friends of Dialogue:

There are so many good light books out there, that it’s high time for a heavy weight to balance things out.

At this point in the series of podcasts, I do make a space and present a quick bird’s eye view of my book. The reason is simply because by now you must have certainly asked the question, how does all this so far tie-in with the book?

 In any case, the title of my book is “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101 (PaRDeS primevalism ~ treeseeding our original common-sense on the Bible’s Creation Story 1:1-2:3; Universal World ReConstitution, from Crisis City to PaRaDiSe Earth)”.

The title pretends to make the statement that, while there may be, on the one hand, the hard physical and biological sciences, and, on the other hand, the softer extensions of the social and political sciences, there has yet to be anything in-between. Sure, there’s the humanities, but these are hardly sciences. Rather, philosophy is the antithesis of science. This simply doesn’t make any sense, unless nonsense is acceptable nowadays out of force of habit.

If the title is the what, then, the subtitle would be the how. It explains the source that led me to reach the conclusion of the existence of the field, to use this image taken from physics. In a nutshell, it makes the claim that ultimate knowledge, human science, rests on the Primeval Big Bang of the Creation Story. Without giving more away at this early stage, which will be provided in due course, let’s move on with the narrative.

Our claim is that there is a science that stands tall on the shoulders, on the one hand, of the sciences, and, on the other hand, of the humanities, and this has got to be human science. Introductory level, that is, 101, but not implying in any way, shape, or form, baby-talk. This is no babble, rather, it pretends to layout the cornerstone of civilization moving forward.

Let’s jump straight into the work, without further ado. Enough introduction has already been made such that in what follows you will surely feel a déjà-vu familiarity with the content. At one point, I was tempted to start the series of podcasts with an outline of my book, but decided against it. The reason simply being that pedagogically it was unsound. The way to do things, is to give samples taken out of real-life experiences that showcase the general principle involved, and then, and only then, move on to present the thesis statement.

The work is structured in III Parts. Part I deals with “Greece, Israel, and Modernity”. This provides numerous examples of the occurrence of triads in all walks of life, ranging from the core school subjects, to daily experiences. The purpose is to guide the reader to wonder, one swallow doesn’t make spring, granted, but, a whole school clouding the sky, surely does. So, much smoke must be indicating that there’s a fire going on.

Part II is entitled “The Seed of Life”. If you’ve been reading and listening so far, you must by now know what I am referring to. The Seed of Life name, obviously takes off from the Tree of Life image. This is so central to the Second Creation Story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and all that therein occurs, that it affects our understanding of the things of the world ever since.

But, after all, where does a tree come from, if not from a seed? Of course, this may begin to sound like the chicken-and-egg dilemma. Though there is some element of truth in the comparison, however, the point, isn’t so much that, but rather, that there is alternative view of things that is equally contender to offer an explanation of things in the world. But, besides that, the clue comes without a doubt from the fact that the image used throughout the numerous slides of the essay, of an ellipse and right-triangle, is reminiscent of a pecan, of a shell surrounding a live kernel, hence the name Seed of Life.

Part III, however, takes off on the tangent, as if replying to the nature of the previous comparison made of the Tree of Life with the Seed of Life. It happened quite naturally, taking off from the middle, not from the beginning leg of the essay. It wasn’t but until I had finished the middle Part, that it suddenly surfaced in me, the query, what relationship does all this have, that I had written, with the greater tradition of Jewish thought?

I hadn’t occurred to me before this point to inquire at greater length. But, now there, as if before a cliff, as awareness struck me, of the presence of the deep. That I had inadvertently walked into unchartered territory. Had I been aware, most certainly I would not have dared embark on such an odyssey. I simply don’t see myself as having such resolve of character. Ignorance, is not only bliss, it’s also, audacity.

The question that I now posed, was, how does this PaRDeS, ellipse and triad of a pecan, tie-in with the Seed of Life approach of Kabbalah Reception (קבלה)? The reason I now asked, was, because by now I had searched the web, and to my surprise, discovered that there are two main themes in Jewish mysticism, the Ma’aseh Merkhavah Work of the Chariot (מעשה מרכבה), found in Ezekiel Yechezke’l  1:1-26 (יחזקאל) not recommended for beginners, and, to my surprise, also the Ma’aseh Bere’shith Work of Creation (מעשה בראשית) Genesis 1:1-2:3!

There is, what amounts in practice to a ban on studying such works. The bar is set accordingly high to dissuade the curious light of heart: men over forty, married, captain of fifty, and like conditions. Fortunately, since the year 1492 the conditions have been relaxed, and now, everybody is welcomed to study it, at their own risk, mind you.

But, unfortunately, that happens to be the same year of the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, effectively affecting its development. While it did make headway in Safed Israel, it has been under the radar for the most part, under the heading of occult sciences, or, the mystic. Hardly adequate milieu for healthy growth and strengthening. Up until of late, of course, with this incursion of ours.

The Kabbalah actually takes off from a study of the Creation Story 1:1-2:3. Of this I wasn’t aware. How could anyone suspect that the triads of Pythagoras could eventually lead a trail directly to such pits. But, hold on, I’m getting way too much ahead of myself. This we will cover in due course. In the meantime, let’s take it from the top.

~

In Part I, the starting point is the present. Contemporary thought goes by the name of Modernity. It is the case that there is an ongoing crisis of civilization, and, only getting worse as we speak. For how long? No one knows for sure, some claim that it’s coetaneous with humanity, since Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Others claim, that it’s of more recent invoicing. Be what it may, the most recent milestone in shaping contemporary thought is, beyond a doubt, the Principia of Isaac Newton. The whole title of his book tells the tale, namely, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. This surmounts to putting physics on a mathematical footing, debunking the philosophical basis dating from Antiquity, and, in general, to the School of Athens, comprised by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.

As science teacher to at-risk students at the local Austin ISD, for the most part, I have a population of those not going on to college and higher grounds. Here, it’s more like the pipeline to prison, kind of thing, with notable exceptions. Though High School is not research oriented, one is, nonetheless, exposed to an extensive view of the whole area of science. And I mean of science, including biology, chemistry, and physics. The main concern of the facility is their reason of being, juvenile justice, and only secondarily, education. After all, the host is the County, we, District, are guests.

In practice, this rolls out as having all classes being stacked-up, in all core subjects, and electives as well, including PE. That is, in each class period I may have biology students, alongside chemistry, and some physics, as well as some environmental science, and 8th grade science in the mix. Oh, Delta credit recovery students as well, that’s computer assisted modality, covering astronomy, health, and those of the other core subjects, ELA, Math, and Social Studies.

But, looking beyond the challenge this setup poses, it is also breeding ground for asking out-of-the-ordinary questions, those seldom articulated in a regular school setting. Inquiries like, what is the common denominator in all these science subjects? The blank reply from all Chapter One of any science book is, the Scientific Method. Of course, it really isn’t. This is where the first tolerance vaccine for fake science takes root under the skin, early in schooling. This is just placed there so that you don’t have to ever bother asking again, if there was ever anyone so inclined.

Well, I don’t know about other teachers. I can only talk in the first person. Having studied physics and philosophy, and business, gave me an inclination for mixing theory with practice, and, avoiding the path most taken. Along the way, I discovered the preSocratic thinkers, those who predated philosophical thought proper. Back then there were three Schools of Thought, and one Mystic Sect. The timeline was Thales of Miletus, founder of the Milesian School, of the cosmologists; then Xenophanes of Colophon and Parmenides of Elea, founders of the Eleatic School, of the being-is-and-not-being-is-not; then Pythagoras of Samos, founder of both Pythagorean School and Sect, of the triads, and, of the Tetractys, respectively.

Pythagoras of Samos stands out above his contemporaries. Though he personally left no written fragments behind; fortunately, his followers did. In particular, Ion of Chios is credited with saying, that the virtue of things is a triad: strength, intelligence, luck. Philolaus of Croton added that all things (triad) are unlimiteds, limiters, and both, unlimiteds and limiters. Less is more, squarely applies here.

If you teach High School to kids who couldn’t care less about science, and all the knowledge that it represents, this is all you need to know about education to figure out the puzzle as to why we live in a broken, corrupt, and misguided world. At one point three years into teaching at Detention, I asked, what is it, that best portrays science, to all parties concerned?

Starting from Biology, working my way back to Chemistry, and unto Physics, I can’t think of anything more representative of science than the Equation.

Then I added one and one, and, to my surprise, there it was, in plain sight, for all to see. In plain view, stark naked to the unforgiving eye. The triad in a nutshell. The reason for the success of the triad is, that it is the philosophical version of the human brain. And, of the equation, it is that it is its mathematical mapping.

In a way, I guess you could say it was my Eureka, or Aha moment, if you prefer. I had been toying with making correspondences all this time, and found quite a few, but, regarding science at its roots, this had eluded me. More than anything else, this gave me a charge of confidence. After all, what more can a person ask, to keep following the guiding tread, than a strike of lucidity?

This I did. The bulk of the rest of this Part of the book makes the case working my way backwards that there’s so much evidence in its favor that it more than warrants doing a further search on the matter at hand. Herein I put forth examples from all the spectrum of experiences, ranging from language, social studies, and passages from the Bible itself.

In closing, allow us to put out the slide that best portrays the notion outlined above, of how it all ties together, simply, in PaRDeS. This is to be read as columns.

This takes us to Part II of the text. Just like the drive going backwards to the source in science, led me eventually to the Equation in physics, likewise, I asked myself the same question, but, now regarding the greater scheme of things. What is it that all points to, and nothing can point beyond it. Well, we can’t be talking about anything else than about the beginning. The beginning is the starting point of everything. All dovetails to the beginning, and from there, spread outwards. By beginning, I mean in time, as well as in the literature. The Bible Creation Story stands out, without a doubt. Sure, there are other stories, but none better source-codes the essence of time than this one.

There are many ways to approach the Bible Creation Story. Though I am quite aware of the documentary thesis, and other critical works, like, what role does Ezra the Scribe play in putting all this together, they all take a backseat at the end of the day. Irrespective of their relevance, we still have to take a study of the Creation Story on its own merits.

In the previous Part mention is made of the two prevalent explanations out there, on the one hand, the Greek of the impossibility of an infinite regression, and, its dubious conclusion of the Eternal Universe, and, on the other hand, the Israeli of Revelation of the Torah Teaching (תורה) to Moses at Mount Sinai. All you can conclude is that you can’t conclude anything. The first thesis is documented in the Dialogues of Plato, of the School of Athens, whereas the second appears in the Bible, in the book of Bemidbar Exodus (במדבר).

Hardly anything is provided in this Part outside that might serve as background. Instead, wasting no time, assuming the indispensable on the part of the interested reader, I jumped directly into the crux of the matter, the Creation Story as found in Bere’shith Genesis 1:1-2:3 (בראשית). The toolbox that I carried in my backpack contained, amongst other instruments, the Pythagorean triad and notions of the Tetractys, my science teaching, the backdrop of modernity, and personal items.

Ordinarily one hears that there are two Creation Stories, very symptomatic of our times, needless to say. In reality, there’s only one Creation Story, and, a second one. The one Creation story is the Seven Days, spanning 1:1-2:3, whereas the second one, is that of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, spanning 2:4-2:24. Originally, the intention was to cover the whole two chapters, however, due to time, and ending wasted after three years of toiling, I cut it back to the One Creation Story.

What I was looking for was a template, something along the lines of the triad and the Tetractys, a cogent way of putting things in a nutshell. This I found from the start in One Day, verses 1:1-5. What’s more, One Day cannot be understood, but thanks to verse 1:1. Furthermore, this verse 1:1 can’t be understood either, without the very first word, Bere’shith InHeadOf (בראשית) of 1:1a. Moreover, this first word can only be understood in light of the first letter of the Hebrew alefbeth, namely, álef a (א). The key to unraveling all this is provided by the very construction of the second letter of the alefbeth, beth b (ב), and the fact of the third one, gímel g (ג), equivalent to our c.

As an aside, though actually quite central, is the fact of the correspondence between letters and numbers in Hebrew. The álef a (א) corresponds to the number one (1), the beth b (ב) to the two (2), the gímel g (ג) to the three (3), and so on.

All this is very logical, but, up beyond to the point that a program couldn’t get it. There is a leap, that only a person can take. A point of mutual understanding seems to be reached between the reader and the text, without which all is pointless. The only explanation, credible one, that I can come up with, is that this is understandable solely on account that we somehow have it in us, already, what is in the text, somehow.

A dialogical relationship of sorts is established from get-go. This experience is certainly not unique. My impression is that therein lies the proof, to the convinced, of an actual Revelation. You cannot prove any more than you can disprove it. This doesn’t mean that it’s arbitrary. Quite the contrary. But, at the end of the day, the ultimate proof is in how much it nourishes and nurtures us.

As I was saying, a template I found, and that is PaRDeS PaRaDiSe (פרדס). This is an acronym standing for Peshat Plain (פשט), Rémez Remite (רמז), Derash Discover (דרש), Sod Secret (סוד). This is just the hermeneutics of Biblical exegesis. The sages have known it all along, just never bothered telling anyone, or else, they did, we just weren’t listening attentively.

Perhaps the best way to understand it is by connecting with our ordinary way of describing our human composition. We; we are, PaRDeS PaRaDiSe (פרדס); we are whole, Sod Secret (סוד); all the while, we are the whole in parts, Spirit Derash Discover (דרש), Mind Rémez Remite (רמז), and Body Peshat Plain (פשט).

The next thing on the to-do list was to demonstrate that, as is verse 1:1, so are the rest of verses 1:2-2:3. This takes up the bulk of this Part II. But it is necessary, that effectively all the verses somehow, more or less, fit the template.

In closing, let’s put an illustrative slide that highlights the above-mentioned notion of PaRDeS PaRaDiSe (פרדס). Here we have the right-triangle, representing the triad as in PaRDeS PaRaDiSe (פרדס), the Spirit Derash Discover (דרש), Mind Rémez Remite (רמז), Body Peshat Plain (פשט), all the while the ellipse encloses it as Creation PaRDeS PaRaDiSe (פרדס), the Divine Sod Secret (סוד).

Part III, takes off from the previous one. As mentioned at the outset, after having finished it, the Ma’aseh Bere’shith Work of Creation (מעשה בראשית), the natural question was to ask, how does this tie in with the one already out there? That is, by now naming our version of things as the “Seed of Life”, the question is, what relationship holds between it and the “Tree of Life”, the one commonly referred to as Kabbalah Reception (קבלה)?

This in itself is quite another ball game. Nevertheless, it needs to be addressed, for leaving it open, is not an option. If there are two versions of the same thing, the natural question to ask, is, how do these compare and contrast? This wasn’t part of the original plan, rather, it came aboard by added measure, notwithstanding.

It is with this brief that the Seed of Life version surfaces, whereas, on the other hand, the Tree of Life has a long life, approximately dating from the later part of the Middle Ages, though having a direct link to Antiquity. It is hard to tell, being shrouded as in a cloud.

So far, in the previous Part, we only mentioned the triad on its own. However, if the Seed of Life is continued, it unwraps into a triad-of-triads. In all this, the right-triangle, and, now the triad of right-triangles, is enclosed by the ellipse. On the other hand, the Tree of Life is ordinarily displayed as an array composed of ten (10) sefiroth numbers (ספירות) and twenty-two (22) ’othioth letters (אתיות). The idea being that Creation was executed by way of the ten (10) numbers and the twenty-two (22) letters of the Hebrew alefbeth.

Putting both representations side-by-side, can go a long way to coming up with a mutual mapping. This approach we now display in the following slide.

Our goal is limited to showcase, firstly, if they, the Seed of Life and the Tree of Life, are valid alternative versions of the same thing, and secondly, if so, are they mutually helpful into developing a higher order one standing on the shoulders of both, a SeedTree, as it were? Let’s put it in question form. Assuming the validity of the triad-of-triads, the question then is, is the Tree of Life configuration compliant with the notion of the triad-of-triads of the Seed of Life?

The question has no effect on the array composed out of the ten (10) sefiroth numbers (ספירות), once we’ve made the corresponding mutual identifications. However, it certainly has an impact on the distribution of the twenty-two (22) ’othioth letters (אתיות). The arrangement is different in order to comply with the triad-of-triads requirement condition.

Our research, which it obviously isn’t, stops here, once having made the necessary adjustments to the reordering of the lines connecting the dots, that is, of the twenty-two (22) ’othioth letters (אתיות) connecting the ten (10) sefiroth numbers (ספירות). As to what it could possibly mean further down the line, is well beyond the penetration of my lights.

We end this section displaying what, to our understanding, should be the corrected Tree of Life configuration. In all this, we have chosen to name the ten (10) sefiroth numbers (ספירות) of the Seed of Life with names taken out directly from the same Creation Story text in question. On the other hand, the Tree of Life has names taken from other parts of the Bible.

Though not requisite, to understanding the content podcasts in these webpages, it is highly recommended to study the source at one point, once one is sufficiently able and motivated to do so. My recommendation would be to read at leisure all you can of Part I, start selectively with One Day of Part II, and, skim over Part III.

Needless to say, there’s more in the book than what has been expressed herein so far. Here we for the most part limit our discussion to day one, and more precisely verse 1:1, whereas, the book covers the whole of the seven days. If you simply can’t get yourself to do the book, no problem, the Takeaway is simply PaRDeS, and it should suffice moving forward.

Well, with this we end the summary of the book “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”, that forms the basis of the whole project.

Yours truly, Ricardo Turullols-Bonilla

The Austin Cry: be the Cause, join the Movement, the PaRDeS Universal ReConstitution for Washington and World Repair!

Visit www.Ric4USH21.comwww.PaRDeSism.com, and find my book “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101” in English and Spanish translation, in paperback and eBook

Thank you so very much. And, God bless!

008* In a Nutshell of: Creation Story – PaRDeS – BeRe’shIth InBeginningOf/Genesis 1:1

The Austin Cry: be the Cause, join the Movement, PaRDeS Universal ReConstitution for Washington and World Repair!

Visit my websites www.PaRDeSism.com,  www.Ric4USH21.com, pdf podcasts, or at iTunes.

I have an enthusiast calling; a book to deliver “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”; &, a job to get done => place the cornerstone of civilization for the III Millennium!

Title of book: “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”

Subtitle: (PaRDeS primevalism ~ treeseeding our original common-sense on the Bible’s Creation Story 1:1-2:3; Universal World ReConstitution, from Crisis City to PaRaDiSe Earth)

Author: Ricardo Turullols-Bonilla. In paperback and digital, in English and Spanish translation.

What we create, here and now, reconstitutes the universe!

008* In a Nutshell of: Creation Story – PaRDeSBeRe’shIth InBeginningOf/Genesis 1:1

Dear Friends of Dialogue:

In following, we express the takeaway message of BeRe’shIth InBeginningOf/Genesis 1:1 (בראשית), in as compact a manner as is practical to express principles for rapid later consultation.

Our focus will be on the translation from the original Biblical Hebrew, on the one hand, what it does say, and, and on the other hand, what it does not say. Then move on to the interpretation as best suits a modern world moving forward that is driven by science-&-technology, but, incorporating philosophy and religion into the mix as well.

The old fix, simply can’t, and didn’t stand, the stress-test of time. Instead of giving us PaRaDiSe Earth, it has inherited us Crisis City. For this, it ought to be held accountable. Torah (תורה) means Teaching. So, then, what is it teaching us? Lesson one should be about empowering us to continue the job as grown-ups, of being successful on Earth, continuing Creation, creatively reconstituting by employing this four-tiered foldable powertool of PaRDeS, which, is the Takeaway of the whole Creation Story!

Just like in pre-K. Lesson one isn’t about US or World history, a chronological narrative of events. Rather, it’s about learning the abc, and, the 123: the science of letters and numbers. In other words, lesson one is about language. Unfortunately, what is missing in teaching is exactly how the whole is made up of parts. Can’t blame the educators, for they themselves weren’t taught it either.

This is where we intend to make up for the shortcoming. For, without this primeval common-sense explained, we’re perplexed. What happens in practice is that in trying to fix things, we only end by making things worse. Having good intentions, while necessary condition, is not sufficient to get things right. We definitely need to know what we’re doing. Time is running out, we need to shape up before we blow ourselves to kingdom come: children, grandchildren, pets, and all.

Just as Creation begins with one day of the seven days, verse 1:1 begins the one day. Let’s take it from the top working our way downward. It, verse 1:1a-g, begins with the word 1:1a BeRe’shIth InBeginningOf (בראשית), which, in turn, begins with the letter beth b 1:1a/a (ב). This letter is the gatekeeper. In its role, it is interphase.

In the Hebrew alefbeth, the ordering is alef a (א) beth b (ב) gimel g (ג), this last letter corresponding to our letter c. By the way, as an aside, this kind of reminds me of the Johnny Walker character on the label. Well, back to the text. Behind the curtain, we have the silent letter alef a (א), while in-between, we have the gatekeeper beth b (ב), and, in front, we have the walking letter gimel g (ג).

In Hebrew, since numbers correspond to letters, the further cue that alef a (א) is the whole, is telling us that the whole is one! Interpretation is based on the cue coming from the whole and triad in one of the alef a (א). In any case, the rest follows, as if by added inertia.

The opening message of this first letter beth b (ב), is that its bottom part points backwards to the silent letter alef a (א). This is as if saying, this is where you come from, but you cannot go back; instead, return to the gatekeeper letter beth b (ב), for further instructions. Now, back with the letter beth b (ב), its mouth opens towards the front, in the direction of the third letter of the alefbeth, the gimel g (ג). This letter we recall is walking forward, from right to left, as is the case in Hebrew alefbeth from alef a (א) to tav t (ת), our a-to-z.

So, then, it is indicating for us to go forward, in the sense of the alefbeth, from alef a (א) to tav t (ת), this last one corresponding to our z, the last letter of our alphabet. It tells us not to look back, instead, to keep moving forward.

This procedure is telling the whole story of Creation, as to how to proceed moving forward. It is providing us with the template, the master blueprint, as it were. Actually, this is carried over from the script of the very first letter alef a (א). A closer look will tell the tale. The letter as such is one, the whole, which in turn, is constituted out of three parts, the triad.

The architecture of the letter alef a (א) is mapped by way of the “Seed of Life” configuration, consisting of the whole, as an ellipse, and, the triad, as a right triangle. The right triangle is made up of the diagonal of the letter alef a (א), as hypotenuse, with the upper arm of the letter, as the vertical side, and the lower arm of the letter, as the horizontal side of the right triangle.

In synthesis, this letter alef a (א) spells out the acronym PaRDeS. The rollout is as follows: the whole letter as such is Sod Secret (סוד), then follows the triad of parts: with the upper arm of the right triangle as Derash Discover (דרש), the diagonal as Rémez Remite (רמז), and, the lower arm as Peshath Plain (פשט).

All further interpretation is based on the cue from the above letter alef a (א), fine-tuned by the Hebrew alefbeth study of the alef beth gimel abg (אבג), and, finally, applied to the first word BeRe’shIth InBeginningOf 1:1a (בראשית).

Now we move on to the opening word BeRe’shIth InBeginningOf 1:1a (בראשית), leaving behind the opening letter beth b 1:1a/a (ב). There is also the matter of yod y (י), appearing in both the 1:1a/a and in 1:1a/c. In the latter, it is part of the plural masculine; the problem that I have interpreting is what role it plays in the former. I don’t know, just thought it important to mention.

So, in a kernel, let’s continue with what BeRe’shIth InBeginningOf/Genesis 1:1a (בראשית) says, and, with what it does not say. It does not read “In the beginning…” There is no definite article “the” attested. There is, instead, an “of”. It says, “In beginning of…”. Additionally, there’s a comma immediately afterwards.

It doesn’t say, either, “When Elohim began to create…”, which is a way of combining the first word “beginning”, with the second word “created”. Additionally, this latter solution breaks up the first word. The “In-”, to, “When”; and, the “-Beginning-”, to, “began”. It also omits the “-Of” altogether. Another point, verse 1:1 establishes a complete thought on its own, irrespective of the role it might play down the line regarding what follows, say, the remainder of one day 1:1-5.

This takes us to the ordering of the second word 1:1b and the third word 1:1c. It says, “bara’ ’Elohim created Elohim (ברא אלהים)”; it does not say, “’Elohim bara’ Elohim created (אלהים ברא)”.

The maxim of the hermeneutics of Biblical exegesis is that you cannot add nor detract from the original Biblical Hebrew text. Neither can you add “the”, nor can you subtract “of”, respectively. In all, it says “In beginning of, …”; it does not say “In the beginning…”

Moving on with the second word 1:1b, bara’ created (ברא). It says, “created”, perfect aspect masculine singular. It does not say, “creating”, participle; nor “to create”, infinitive; nor “began to create”, combining a variation of the first word with the verbal infinitive form.

As for the third word 1:1c, we have ’Elohim Elohim (אלהים). This is not affected, though a few pertinent comments are in order. Though it has a masculine plural ending, it, however, conjugates with the masculine singular bara’ created (ברא). Here I have chosen to leave it nude transliterated, without attempting translation, much less interpretation.

Now we’re in position to display the first two folds of verse 1:1, namely, 1:1a, and 1:1a-c. It says: “BeRe’shIth, InBeginningOf, (בראשית,)”, and “BeRe’shIth bara’ ’Elohim; InBeginningOf created Elohim; (בראשית ברא אלהים)”, respectively. In the first fold, the comma plays a role, whereas, in the second, in order to connect, it is dropped. In the second fold, the semi-colon serves as stop. In the first fold, the word is standalone, whereas, in the second, it acts as subject of the short three-word phrase.

Now, onwards to the fourth word 1:1d ’eth language-with-you (את). The customary translation is that it is direct object marker (d.o.m.). While this is certainly the case, still, it has to be enunciated. It consists of the first and last letters of the Hebrew alefbeth, namely, alef a (א) and tav t (ת), respectively. This fact we translate as “language”. Additionally, it stands for “with” and for “you”. This we put together and translate the fourth word 1:1d ’eth (את) as “language-with-you”, or simply as “language-with”, when it connects with something following it.

Next comes the fifth word 1:1e hashshamáyim the heavens (השמים). We see that it has the definite article ha- the- (ה-). This makes ’eth (את) redundant as direct object marker. This simple fact reinforces our view; hence the necessity of giving it an explicit translation, as “language-with-you”. The same argument holds later on with the sixth word 1:1f ve’eth and-language-with (ואת) and the last word 1:1g ha’áretz the earth (הארץ).

Now as for the third fold, we would now drop the first word, and have it consist solely as follows 1:1b-d: “bara’ ’Elohim ’eth created Elohim language-with-you (ברא אלהים את)”. This introduces letters and numbers as the way of communicating.

For the fourth, and last fold, we would now drop the first and second words, leaving solely 1:1c-g: “’Elohim ’eth hashshamáyim ve’eth ha’áretz Elohim is dialogue-with the heavens and-dialogue-with the earth (אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ)”. In this fourth fold, we opted for substituting dialogue for language, since it’s better served this way. Herein, Elohim is established as the protagonist.

A note in passing, regarding should you ever get around to reading my book “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”, the basis of all that is herein explained. It is not written as a textbook, with lots of, off the shelf items ready for consumption, and little else, in the way of critical thinking or inquiry learning. Rather, it’s going to develop your insight into the nature of things, your G’d given primeval common-sense. Bon voyage!

The argument in favor of the four-tiered foldable of PaRDeS, as to a faithful translation to the original Hebrew, the surprise Takeaway, and, only then duly interpreted, all this we now put in synoptic slide format for ease of consulting.

In parting, allow me to make one thing clear. In no way am I proselytizing in favor of any religion, not even of religion, rather, if, in favor of anything, it would be for the advancement of Human Science. After all, there’s the greater human PaRDeS consisting of Religion, Philosophy, Science, and Technology, respectively.

I don’t see the need to prolong this brief any longer. Hope this helps to wrap things up in a nutshell.

Yours truly, Ricardo Turullols-Bonilla

The Austin Cry: be the Cause, join the Movement, the PaRDeS Universal ReConstitution for Washington and World Repair!

Visit www.Ric4USH21.comwww.PaRDeSism.com, and find my book “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”, in English and Spanish translation, in paperback and eBook

Thank you so very much. God bless!

007* Executive Summary of: Creation Story – PaRDeS – Bere’shith Genesis 1:1

The Austin Cry: be the Cause, join the Movement, PaRDeS Universal ReConstitution for Washington and World Repair!

Visit my websites www.PaRDeSism.com,  www.Ric4USH21.com, pdf podcasts, or at iTunes.

I have an enthusiast calling; a book to deliver “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”; &, a job to get done => place the cornerstone of civilization for the III Millennium!

Title of book: “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”

Subtitle: (PaRDeS primevalism ~ treeseeding our original common-sense on the Bible’s Creation Story 1:1-2:3; Universal World ReConstitution, from Crisis City to PaRaDiSe Earth)

Author: Ricardo Turullols-Bonilla. In paperback and digital, in English and Spanish translation.

What we create, here and now, reconstitutes the universe!

007* Executive Summary of: Creation Story – PaRDeSBere’shith Genesis 1:1

Dear Friends of Dialogue:

The greatest human mystery on Earth has always been how to translate and interpret verse Genesis 1:1 of the Bible Creation Story, for all else follow suit. But, not any which way, rather, in a way that is both, a faithful translation of the original Hebrew, and, that its interpretation is enlightening to a science-&-technology driven modern world. This apparently inane thing, actually makes all the difference in the world. Did I hear anyone say, that the devil was in the details?

Square one of Bere’shith Genesis 1:1 (בראשית) is a make, or, break situation. How else can we explain the fact that, on the one hand, the Revelation of the Holy Book has been around for the last 3000 thousand years, and, on the other hand, the perennial crisis of civilization, that is only worsening as we speak and write?

The explanation is simply because getting right, the beginning of the beginning of all times, at absolute time equal to zero, determines the outcome of what comes thereafter. Getting it right from the start, duly empowers us, and insures that we have a chance of being successful in this world; that ultimately, it’s up to us. But, getting it wrong, and, banking our trust in the Bible as we do, will be misleading, and it will blind us down Dead-end lane.

All the Bible versions out there in print, both Jewish and Christian, with none meeting the above requirement, have all oversighted the Takeaway, and are part to blame for the broken, corrupt, and misguided world we live in. But, fortunately, now we know why Crisis City, the way to PaRaDiSe Earth, and, most importantly, how to achieve it in our lifetime. But, the good news cannot die with me, it needs to see the light of day.

Herein we state our thesis that PaRDeS PaRaDiSe (פרדס) is the Takeaway. The short answer is, that the virtue of all things is, that the whole is made up of a triad of parts. The Takeaway PaRDeS PaRaDiSe (פרדס) is an acronym standing for the Divine, as whole Sod Secret (סוד), with the human triad of parts, as Derash Discover (דרש), Rémez Remite (רמז), and Peshat Plain (פשט).

Our claim is that the cornerstone of civilization is traceable to the Bible Creation Story in a series of concentric steps as follows: starting with the background Bere’shith Genesis 1:1-2:3 (בראשית); then, focusing on the one day 1:1-1:5; then, zooming in to verse 1:1; further pointing to the one word Bere’shith InBeginningOf 1:1a (בראשית); then, zeroing in to its opening letter beth b 1:1a/a (ב); and, ultimately, ending with what virtually precedes it all, namely, 1:1a/a álef a (א).

I will start by putting the results upfront for quick consulting, then then go back to the start, and trace out the whole argument step-by-step. The following leaves out all explanations, same that are provided in the other podcasts. We will highlight Bere’shith Genesis 1:1 (בראשית) in what follows in italics and with quotation marks.

~

The current imprecise translation, and misleading interpretation of Bere’shith Genesis 1:1 (בראשית) of all Bible printed versions, reads. Herein we’re using Elohim in place of G’d:

In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth:”

In the literal translation from the original Biblical Hebrew, Bere’shith Genesis 1:1 (בראשית), reads: “InBeginningOf, created Elohim; language-with the heavens, and language-with the earth:

The question now is, how do we interpret this conundrum? Our interpretation is that it is to be read as a four-tier foldable. This is a vital question, for therein lies the Takeaway. It should read: “InBeginningOf / InBeginningOf created Elohim / created Elohim language-with-you / Elohim is dialogue-with the heavens, and dialogue-with the earth:

~

Now follows the executive summary explanation of the whole argument. Please follow me up this quest path of.

Our cue is, first in time, first in cause. Hence, the timeline to solving the crisis of civilization starts off from contemporary Newtonian modernity, goes back to the School of Athens of the triad of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, backwards to Ionia with Pythagoras, and from there, unto the Torah Teaching (תורה) of Moses.

We endorse Revelation of the Torah Teaching (תורה) to Moses at Mount Sinai, as source. And, in this regard, of both, on the one hand, more recently, of philosophy, science, and technology, from Athens Greece invoicing, and, on the other hand, more remotely, of religion, from Jerusalem Israel. Our claim, not surprisingly, is that the source of the problems ailing us today in Modernity necessarily leads us to finding its solution at the beginning, of the beginning of things, as written in the Bible Creation Story verse 1:1.

All culture eventually dovetails. The argument and frame are given in the Gloss and Spearhead podcasts, respectively. The expectation is to adequately prepare the diligent listener for our book. Herein we’ll limit our exposition to conclusions, abbreviating in visual displays, focusing only on the following.

That is, we focus solely on: the one letter beth b 1:1a/a (ב); the one word 1:1a Bere’shith InBeginningOf (בראשית); the one verse 1:1 Bere’shith bara’ ’Elohim; ’eth hashshamáyim, ve’eth ha’áretz: InBeginningOf, created Elohim; language-with the heavens, and language-with the earth; leaving pending the one day 1:1-1:5 Bere’shith…yom echad: InBeginningOf…one day; as well as the remaining six days, from Vayyo’mer ’Elohim Andt said Elohim…la‘asoth to make; and much more, we leave to our book “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”, for reasons of time and space.

What we demonstrate is that, in all, the above considerations support our thesis that PaRDeS PaRaDiSe (פרדס) is the Takeaway of verse 1:1. That is, the way up and beyond is to follow the PaRDeS imperative to ReConstitution, and make Earth, PaRaDiSe, or else, might as well get used to living in Crisis City for the duration.

~

So, then, let’s get started at the interphase. That is, let’s start off with the opening letter beth b 1:1a/a (ב) of the Creation Story, and for that matter, of the Bible in its entirety. From the Hebrew, we know which are the first three letters of the alefbeth. That alphabetically, gimel g (ג), our c, follows the beth b (ב), and, that what precedes it is álef a (א). In Spanish, it is abcedario, literally meaning the abc-diary, what in Hebrew is alefbeth, and in English alphabet, simply, ab.

It all rests on the interphase of Creation. It’s like the passing of the baton in a relay race, without dropping it, looking forward at all time, with a straight back slightly inclined forward, all the while extending the hand down with back palm upwards, to receive it, by touch, being slapped into the palm of the receiver by the giver. The receiver is verily gimel g (ג); the giver, the silent secret unknown 1:1a/a álef a (א); and, somehow the only other one that makes the play possible, the baton, none other than the beth b 1:1a/a (ב).

But, let’s take it from the start of things, to get a sense of primeval orientation, with Revelation to Moses at Mount Sinai of the Torah Teaching (תורה). This is my starting point by definition. Inside that backpack, at the very entrance is Holiness, humanity as wholeness, same that later on must spread out as a triad of parts, undeniably so.

Holiness, as such, unfolds as ‘Am HaKodesh Holy People (עם הקודש), Sefer HaKodesh Holy Book (הספר הקודש), Lashon HaKodesh Holy Language (לשון הקדש), and ’Áretz HaKodesh Holy Land (ארץ הקודש). All this means PaRDeS, same that unfolds as ellipse Divine Sod, and, the triad of parts, consisting of Derash spirit, Rémez Mind, and Peshath Body, respectively.

At present, we’re limiting our say to the Lashon HaKodesh Holy Language (לשון הקדש), what makes it Holy is having a source-code message, sublimely built-in, integrated in its script.

Let’s start here following this cue. Since it is, after all, a thing; its virtue is, simply PaRDeS.

Now onwards to the first word 1:1a. To start off, there’s the question of its ending Be-re’sh-ith In-Beginning-Of (ב-ראש-ית). We interpret, in following Rashi, that the ending -ith -Of (-ית) is the genitive, or possessive. It doesn’t say, “In the beginning”.

As for Bere’shith InBeginningOf 1:1a (בראשית), literally, it says InHeadOf, or employing the customary, and breaking it into its constituent parts, as Be-re’sh-ith In-Beginning-Of (ב-ראש-ית). In Hebrew, there is no indefinite article. It doesn’t say In-A-Beginning-Of, since Creation only occurred once. But, neither does it say In-The-Beginning-Of, since this would require a beth b (בַּ-), with patach vowel underneath, and not what it actually has beth b (בְּ-), with shewa underneath. That pretty much narrows the field simply as InBeginningOf.

Come to think of it, it actually couldn’t be any other way. This fact, that it isn’t singling out any indefinite thing, as in one out of many out there, nor, a definite thing, as in a specific one out of many, that pretty much is its way of saying that it’s All, or Creation. That is, if it isn’t just any, In-A-creation, nor is it a specific creation of something, In-The-creation, but Creation it is, then, it is its own way of saying In- -Creation, In-Creation, or InBeginning.

Now regarding “Of”, the second half of the puzzle. A similar argument is applicable here. It’s not regarding any definite, or specific thing, so as to employ it as in “InBeginningOf” “x”, for the infinite regression objection would automatically kick-in here. But, neither is it referring to nothing at all. So, then, that pretty much leaves only, All, or Creation proper.

Also, there’s the minor concern of the pause, just after this word. Besides reinforcing the above argument, it is also telling us that it is a standalone word, in a first reading approximation. This is hinting us to be on the lookout for an iterative type of rollout regarding its proper interpretation.

If anything, it would be pointing back, to behind the curtain, as it were. That is, the “Of” would be pointing to1:1a/a álef a (א), the silent letter, as if saying that it’s a secret, at least, as far as language is concerned. It is enclaved in our hearts, what makes us Homo sapiens, beings of wisdom. A program, a robot, would be clueless. You know what I mean.

But, and here’s the catch, it doesn’t migrate to the brain, the house of parts, triad or otherwise, for whole it is, and, the triad is parts. In other words, that it is unpronounceable, meaning not accessible to the brain, solely recognizing the heart as home. Less is more, al buen entendedor pocas palabras. All this we will try to put in synoptic slide for ease of consulting.

We are including the slide for Bere’shith InBeginningOf 1:1a (בראשית) so as to have the whole set complete, with no aspects left out.

But Bere’shith InBeginningOf 1:1a (בראשית) is still part of the verse, so there must be more to the role this word plays in the greater narrative of things. This takes us to analyzing the whole of verse 1:1. Eventually, at the other end of the argument, we will have as conclusion that PaRDeS PaRaDiSe (פרדס) is the case. That is, in a nutshell, that it, PaRDeS PaRaDiSe (פרדס), is the Takeaway of all the Creation Story!

Our claim is that verse 1:1 is the source-code. It is encrypted, needing decompression in order to be made intelligible. Furthermore, it must display meaningfully in each of its unfolding phases. If not, how could one tell which is right and which is wrong? This word we display now in synoptic slide format as it unfolds regarding the remaining content of verse 1:1.

The message is that the whole of, is made up of a triad of parts, where triad is like the alef beth gimel abg (אבג) before mentioned. It starts at the level of a letter-&-number, as in alef-1 a-1 3-in-1 (א-1), then the alef beth gimel abg (אבג); next starts with 1:1a, then comes 1:1a-c, then 1:1b-d, then 1:1 c-g. It is like a relay race, the previous ones drop out as they deliver the baton, replaced by one fuller down the line. This we now display in synoptic slide.

But, before leaving this make-or-break opening 1:1, let’s address the matter of the preposition ’eth (את), as to what it corresponds to in this revision effort, an integral part of said verse. This is usually taken as a connective, as direct object marker. But, at the entry level, it too must be interpreted accordingly. After all, what makes a direct object marker, such, to begin with? Isn’t it because it establishes a relationship with what follows, precisely, what “dialogue-with-you” refers to, in the first place? The thing is that a wrong translation and bad interpretation sends the wrong message down the line. There needs to be a fix to this matter, ASAP, that is both, faithful translation, and, significant interpretation, that lights the way to a perplexed world.

But, let’s not lose sight of the fact that at some point, and it has to be at the very beginning, letters, and, associated numbers, must be introduced. That is, language; both the substantive (letters) as well as the calculative (numbers). That is to say, meaning, as apprehending the whole, requires bonding in triad ideas, words, and things, or, the divine, unfolds as spirit, mind, and body, respectively.

The ’eth (את) has to be translated out loud, and provided interpretation, since it always appears when the definite article is used regarding the object, making things unnecessarily redundant. In any case, d.o.m. refers to bonding. So, bonding is dialogue-with-you. The “you”, is the object linked to. Like when I say, “I want the water”, meaning, I want to dialogue-with-the-water, to connect to, and the copula is by language as the a-to-z would have it, that is, from alef a (א) to tav t (ת).

The comma and semi-colon, means that it stays in place, for first reading, then removed for second one, so as to connect with the following next word. The third time around the Bere’shith InBeginningOf (בראשית) drops off, leaving only the second and third words, so as to now connect with the fourth one, our word in question, ’eth (את). Finally, the first two words drop off, leaving the third to connect with the remaining words of the verse. In total, four tiers would be the foldable. The colon at the end signifies that the previous comma stays in place, as regular pause, and read along with what preceded it.

Another possibility would be slightly different. In following would be both scenarios. My personal preference is for the first version. We’re including the original translation for purposes of referencing.

~

InBeginningOf, created Elohim; language-with the heavens, and language-with the earth:

~

InBeginningOf / InBeginningOf created Elohim / created Elohim language-with-you / Elohim is dialogue-with the heavens, and dialogue-with the earth:

~

InBeginningOf / InBeginningOf created Elohim / created Elohim language-with the heavens / created Elohim dialogue-with the heavens, and dialogue-with the earth:

~

Keep in mind in the above, interpreting the second tier, referring to the creation of Elohim by InBeginningOf. This is referring to the concept of Elohim, that is, to the word, what and that we ordinarily interpret as G’d. There are encircling levels of meaning, but ultimately, all points to the One. Period, end of conversation.

Now that we’ve mentioned ’Elohim Elohim (אלהים), we might as well make the most of the opportunity and drop a few words on this subject, be it in passing towards the exit door. The ending is masculine plural, -im s (-ים), though it conjugates with the masculine singular bara’ created (ברא).

My impression is that our notion of G’d is very much influenced by Greek mythology. The Hebrew notion seems to be quite different, by all accounts. Though this theme of the seventy names of Deity is certainly above me, the only point I would like to make is that the usage of this term is more like our Don, Sir, Master, and, additionally as supreme being, as G’d, but not necessarily always.

Also, there seems to be a hint with ’Elohim Elohim (אלהים), that the whole is made up of a triad of parts, with “Elohim is dialogue-with the heavens, and dialogue-with the earth”. Possibly referring to the divine, and, to the triad of parts.

This is reminiscent of the notion of universe, of unity in diversity. This is more akin to the Spanish term, that also ends in plural, Dios. Of course, in this case the plural is dioses, so there the similarity ends. However, there is no plural as such of ’Elohim Elohim (אלהים). This is material worthy of a theme on its own, so I will leave it here.

All the Bible books need reprinting, having gotten Bere’shith InBeginningOf 1:1 (בראשית) off-focus. A flat reading misses the covered items, that only a foldable one can bring out. It misses altogether the whole point, the Takeaway of PaRDeS PaRaDiSe (פרדס) of the Creation Story.

Yours truly, Ricardo Turullols-Bonilla

The Austin Cry: be the Cause, join the Movement, PaRDeS Universal ReConstitution for Washington and World Repair!

Visit www.Ric4USH21.comwww.PaRDeSism.com, and get my book “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101” in English and Spanish translation, in paperback and digital.

Thank you, so very much. G’d, bless.

006* Gloss of: Creation Story – PaRDeS – Bere’shith Genesis 1:1

The Austin Cry: be the Cause, join the Movement, PaRDeS Universal ReConstitution for Washington and World Repair!

Visit my websites www.PaRDeSism.com,  www.Ric4USH21.com, podcasts with pdf, or at iTunes and other platforms.

I have a calling, born out of enthusiasm; a book to deliver, “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”; and a job to get done, place the cornerstone of civilization for the III Millennium!

Title: “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”

Subtitle: (PaRDeS primevalism ~ treeseeding our original common-sense on the Bible’s Creation Story 1:1-2:3; Universal World ReConstitution, from Crisis City to PaRaDiSe Earth)

Author: Ricardo Turullols-Bonilla.

Where: At Amazon, in paperback and digital, in English and Spanish translation.

What we create, here and now, reconstitutes the universe!

006* Gloss of: Creation Story – PaRDeSBere’shith Genesis 1:1

Dear Friends of Dialogue:

The problem with getting the one first thing wrong, is that everything built upon that will be skewed, hence the perennial crisis of civilization. Árbol que crece torcido, jamás su rama endereza”, as the saying goes down south.

This is telling us to go back to square one, to absolute time equal to zero, namely, the Ma‘aseh Bere’shith Work of Creation 1:1 (מעשה בראשית).

A civilization, whose being is founded on it, will grow up clueless. Showing up at the top floors with cracks, decomposition, and bewilderment. The reason is simply because the whole won’t be constituted out of its triad of parts, down the line the connection of the whole with its triad won’t be made. The whole, won’t coalesce as a triad. Instead, it will remain disconnected, on the one hand, as whole being, and on the other hand, its constituent parts, won’t be able to align beliefs, values, with actions.

But, let us take it by parts, putting the bits and pieces together of the puzzle. Figuratively speaking, we could express it as the spear, the spearhead, the tip of the spear, the subtle point of the tip, which is the endpoint of a line extending from infinity to the tip of the spear, you get the idea. Same applies here with the Bible Creation Story Bere’shith Genesis 1:1-2:3 (בראשית).

At the end of day, the penetrating power of a spear will ultimately depend on the point at the tip of the spearhead. The above analogy applies squarely regarding our question at issue of getting to the root of the problem ailing humanity. Taking it from the top and mentioning the whole sequence.

There’s the TaNaKh Bible (תנ׳׳ך), there’s the Torah Teaching (תורה) of Moses’ Chumash Pentateuch (חמש), there’s the Bere’shith Genesis 1:1-50:26 (בראשית), there’s the Bere’shith Genesis 1:1-6:8 (בראשית), there’s the Ma’aseh Bere’shith Work of InBeginningOf 1:1-2:3 (מעשה בראשית),the Creation Story, there’s also the Bere’shith Genesis 1:1 (בראשית), the one-first word, there’s also the Beth B 1:1a (ב) the one-first letter, and, finally, there’s the Álef a 1:0 (א) the behind the curtains silent secret letter, one-first of Hebrew alefbeth.

There are a few sticking points that need addressing on their own in order to make significant progress. There are three items, two substantives, mayor and minor, and one procedural. The mayor item being the matter of the very first word, same that we interpret as Bere’shith InBeginningOf 1:1a (בראשית); the minor item is the matter of the so-called direct object marker that we interpret as ’eth dialogue-with-you (את); the procedural item, is regarding how to read the text, given the previous two concerns, the matter that we resolve by way of the accordion figure of speech. Once this is set in place, the rest follows smoothly.

Now, as regards the interpretations of Bere’shith Genesis 1:1 (בראשית) as such, there are three versions out there, one on the Jewish flank, one on the Christian side, a hybrid one, and now a fourth, our own contribution. On a previous podcast, I was of the opinion that either they are right, or else, they’re wrong, and only one can be right. That left mine as the only one standing. Now, I have taken a sip of my own medicine, and applied the PaRDeS criterion. The possibility now unfolds that, perhaps, these four interpretations, actually, comprise a PaRDeS. This important matter will be discussed  at last.

Let us start with the minor concern. The usual interpretation of ’eth (את) as direct object marker is questionable. Direct object marker means singling out something, as in Yossi rotzeh ’eth hasefer Yossi wants the book (יוסי רוצה את הספר), as distinct to Tal rotzah sefer Tal wants a book (טל רוצה ספר). In this case its usage is clearly called for, there being many books out there, and we need to know if he wants a specific one, or else, she wants anyone, not caring which one book in particular.

However, in the Creation Story 1:1, regarding its double occurrence, this situation doesn’t present itself. After all, it’s not like there are many shamáyim heavens (שמים) and áretz earth (ארץ) out there, preceding Creation, requiring singling out so as to avoid confusion in the greater universe of things. This being discarded, a different interpretation is required to make sense of its inclusion in said verse.

Then, what is it? Well, this is pretty straight forward. The ’eth (את) has various meanings. It depends on the vowel underneath the álef a (א), granted, but even then, there are still various candidates to fill the position. Comes to my mind first ’eth with (את), followed by ’eth you (את). I’m sure there are more, but these immediately come to mind.

Additionally, it happens to be the case that this unique little two-letter word just happens to be made up out of the very first and last letter of the Hebrew alefbeth, álef a (א) and tav t (ת), respectively. Recall that we’re herein talking about the very beginning of things, about absolute time equal to zero, wherein Holy Land HaÁretz HaKodesh (הארץ הקודש), Holy Book HaSefer HaKodesh (הספר הקודש) goes hand in hand with Sacred Language Lashon HaKodesh (לשון הקדש). Holy or sacred, in this context refers to the same thing.

By Holy I mean that the letters of the language have meaning. These are not arbitrary symbols signifying nothing. Rather, that each letter encapsulates a secret to be revealed to those who take the trouble of inquiring.

So, then, we interpret ’eth language (את). Language, or, dialogue, in this context would refer to the same thing. From this we construct ’eth language-with-you/dialogue-with-you (את). This settles the minor concern; now, let’s move on to the mayor one.

But before that, there are various miscellaneous items that appear, as if by added measure. Though these appear later on, we will, nonetheless deal with them here, before addressing them head-on the main concern. This refers to the usage of bara’ created (ברא) perfect aspect, creates or creating bore’ (בורא) participle, and livro’ to create (לברוא). Too much detailing would distract us from the main objective, however, these small matters do need to be mentioned, at the outset, at the very least.

Now to the main concern, addressing the very first word, Bere’shith Genesis 1:1a (בראשית) This is a make or break issue of interpretation. It is composed as follows, same that we carry over to the grounds of transliteration and translation, Be-re’sh-ith In-Beginning-Of (ב-ראש-ית). There’s also the small matter of whether it says In-theBeginning-Of, or simply, In-Beginning-Of, but we’ll not pause on it just yet. The crux of the matter is the ending, same that we’ve underlined, Be-re’sh-ith In-Beginning-Of (ב-ראש-ית).

The Septuagint, or King James Bible version, simply avoids the matter entirely, simply omitting it, the “Of”, as in “In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth:” Instead of saying “In the beginning of Elohim created the heavens and the earth”. In what follows we’ll keep things tidy by solely including the translation, leaving out the transliteration, since, in any case it doesn’t affect the argument.

Rashi, a biblical commentator was the one who pointed out that this ithOf (ית-), is the genitive case. He supported his claim by comparing it to similar passages in the Bible, in particular this one in Bere’shith Genesis 10:10a-c (בראשית) Vathi reshith mamlachto And it was the beginning of his kingdom (ויהי ראשית ממלכתו). This settles the textual matter, “InBeginningOf”. The question now, is, how to circumvent this hurdle, since a pause ends the word, and nothing follows it?

We now know from experience to avoid the infinite regression argument, for this will lead us to an Eternal Universe, and hence no need for a Creator, Creation, and creatures. That is, nothing could possibly fill the possessive, like InBeginningOf “X”, for then we would immediately justifiably make the observation, and where did this “X” come from? If you say, from “Y”, this triggers the infinite regression, and, eventual opens the door to the nonsense conclusion of negating Creation altogether, as unnecessary.

Rashi further scaffolds his interpretation by the previously mentioned verbal maneuvering, plus switching verb-subject sequence to subject-verb, not testified in Hebrew. That is, the original says, “created Elohim”, and his says, “Elohim began to create”. Also, he switches the “In” to “When”. In all, it should say “InBeginningOf, created Elohim”, whereas his version says, “When Elohim began to create”. All these are minor matters, add-ons to side-stepping the genitive case constraint condition.

What he does is make the whole second verse 1:2 follow 1:1, as pause, as parenthesis, then finishing the thought with 1:3. This we quote in its entirety: 1:1 “When Elohim began to create the heavens and the earth: 1:2 the earth was unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep, and a wind from Elohim sweeping over the water: 1:3 Elohim said, “Let there be light”, and there was light:”

So much for Rashi. Now to the third one, the hybrid Jewish and Christian version. This one follows Rashi in recognizing the genitive -ithOf (ית-). However, it takes a shortcut, simply switches the subject-verb to verb-subject, and changes the perfect bara’ created (ברא), to the participle, creating.

The problem with this one is that it doesn’t make any sense either. Sure, you can make something in time, say you can make something in time, say from 3 to 4 o’clock. But Time is not made in time, it is not a process. It is the singularity, the source, not out there in the field. In any case, this we quote outright, “In the beginning of Elohim’s creating the heavens and the earth”.  This would seem to be halfway between Rashi’s and the King James’ version.

In these three cases the translators’ license has been taken beyond justification. But all this wouldn’t have matter much, had it not been that their solution, by manipulating the medium, oversighted the message, altogether. And that’s what tragic to humanity moving forward. Instead of having a PaRaDiSe Earth, we’re stuck in neutral in Crisis City.

Let’s face it, the whole point of the Bible Creation Story is about how to introduce Time, Space and Mass, in such a way that it’s ultimately convincing, rewarding, and meaningful. The problem is at absolute time equals zero, not any positive time afterwards. It’s the introduction of time, temporality, that is at issue, more so than actual temporal duration. Capital T, not small t, so to speak. This delicate issue we’ll now try our hardest to address.

The only consistent interpretation to ultimately make any sense out of all this is having something behind the curtain, so to speak, having, on the one hand, álef a (א), the understood presence of something, making it all possible, and, on the other hand, ’eth language (את), coming in afterwards. This second appearance of the first letter, the álef a (א), is now linked all the way through to the end with the last letter tav t (ת) of the Hebrew alefbeth.

As for Bere’shith InHeadOf 1:1a (בראשית), it is necessarily a standalone word, just as beth b 1:1a/a (ב), is also standalone letter, as interphase. Any other solution would just be circular, faulting as circular argument, using what you’re defining in the definition itself.

The Bible is self-contained. There is nothing outside, nor above, to explain it. Rather its purpose is to explain everything. No stopwatch could possibly clarify what time is. Time is a given, an undefinable, an axiom, what you start with, not, what you arrive at.

But, not so fast. This Bere’shith InHeadOf 1:1a (בראשית) is the goalkeeper, need I say more? Civilization stands, or falls, on it. The Creation Story isn’t just so that we know how it all happened, came to be, but, additionally, to teach us how we, in turn, are to know. Thus, PaRDeS, is our thesis, if there’s one.

In what follows, to narrow the vocabulary population, we’ll drop the “Head” and in its place use instead the more customary one of “Beginning”, as in “InBeginningOf”, rather than “InHeadOf”. In the book, I don’t follow this recommendation, perhaps, not only because it’s also shorter, but in order to distinguish its primary from its derivative meaning by extension.

In any case, now, Bere’shith InBeginningOf (בראשית) is a standalone, a noun, and a phrase: we now have, starting with “In”, an interphase noun, due to its connection with what lies behind the curtain, the álef a (א)), then we follow up with “Beginning” verb, and, finally, the “Of”, the object, and or the adjective.

Though the opening word Bere’shith InBeginningOf (בראשית) is this side of Creation, needless to say, it is still a secret. It is this side of Creation since it’s about the beginning. However, the “Of”, with comma, immediately with nothing following, makes it secret, or referring to, if to nothing specific, then, it must be referring to everything in general, or Creation proper. But, though secret, it still does have a name, Bere’shith InBeginningOf (בראשית).

The opening word Bere’shith InBeginningOf (בראשית) serves various functions. For starts, it serves connecting with the previous virtual letter álef a (א), that’s behind the curtain, so to speak, as stand alone, signifying the theme of Creation, and additionally it serves as subject, as noun regarding what comes next. This last point is referring to Bere’shith bara’ ’Elohim InBeginnngOf created Elohim 1:1a-c (בראשית ברא אלהים) Its other functions we’ll cover later on.

Now to another point, that, by the way, Rashi doesn’t comment. The question is regarding the beth b (ב), since it has a shewa, a vocal one at that, a couple of vertical dots underneath, as in (בְ). The question is whether it should read, InTheBeginningOf, or else InBeginningOf. Let’s take it by parts, one at a time.

Generally, the following grammatical rule applies: Be- In- (בְּ-), with shewa underneath, and ha- the- (הַ-), with vowel patach underneath, thus gives us, BeHa- InThe- (בַּ-), with patach vowel underneath. That is, the patach of ha- the- (הַ-) underneath substitutes the original shewa Be- In- (בְּ-). However, we actually have only (בְּ-), with shewa underneath. This leaves no doubt that there shouldn’t be “The”. That is, it is not the case “InTheBeginningOf”. Instead, the correct interpretation is “InBeginningOf”.

However, this causes a concern, since it isn’t clear which should be. We know it’s not BeHa InThe- (בַּ-), with patach underneath, because that’s not what appears in the text. But this still leaves two options, Be– InA- (בְּ-), with shewa underneath, or something else, still to be determined. The problem is that there’s no indefinite article in Hebrew, equivalent to our “A”, like in “a book”.  The question isn’t whether it’s either “the” or “a”, but, rather, whether it’s neither, or either.

The question is which of the three is it: InABeginningOf, InTheBeginningOf, or else, simply InBeginningOf? If it’s not InTheBeginningOf, then neither is it InABeginningOf, for obvious reasons, since Creation itself a unique happening. We just saw that it isn’t InTheBeginningOf, that leaves InBeginningOf. There is a strong, “a”, a stronger, “the”, and a strongest, “”, with nothing at all.

The, “the”, sounds like a chronological narrative, of sorts. On the other hand, lacking the definite and the indefinite article, the absence of the “The” and the “A”, alongside the cliffhanger “Of”, dovetails well to highlight the character of Creation proper.

Let’s put it all together now. The three parts that constitutes the first word Bere’shith InBeginningOf (בראשית). Firstly, the beth b (ב) connecting with the behind the curtain álef a (א), with álef a (א) playing the part of PaRDeS, of the whole, somehow. Then, now this side of Creation follows the other aspect of the letter beth b (ב), the issue of the missing article, neither definite nor indefinite, that we discovered and settled in favor of “InBeginningOf”. The second part of the word, “Resh”, “Head”, we have already convened miles behind, to follow convention and interpret “InHeadOf” as “InBeginningOf”.

Lastly, will come the cliffhanger “Of”, not especially signaling anything specific, but universal, such that as that by elimination, thus necessarily pointing at the infinite absolute whole. Overall, it’s Creation. But, still it does have a name, Bere’shith InBeginningOf (בראשית). This word is a substantive, a noun, the first name to appear, so it must be Sod Secret (סוד), as whole, standalone.

But, how does it all continue to unfold, at the end of the day? This is where comes into scene the notion of the Triad within PaRDeS. Recall that we just included, after a long excursion, and not without mental reservations, that Bere’shith InBeginningOf 1:1a (בראשית), can be represented within the scheme of PaRDeS as Sod Secret (סוד), as whole, as standalone.

Therefore, in consonance with the core insight of PaRDeS, it would seem to follow that Bere’shith bara’ ’Elohim InBeginningOf created Elohim 1:1a-c (בראשית ברא אלהים), would next be represented by Derash Discover (דרש). That is, that we discovered there is ’Elohim Elohim (אלהים) in Creation. It is rightly named Rémez Remite (רמז), because it does precisely that, it remits us to inquire, thanks to language, to search out for the connection between the world of things and the world of ideas, somehow.

Then, insofar as there is discovery, there must be a Discoverer. That is, one, who in turn, creates language. In following with the triad sequence within the PaRDeS scheme, this next one would then correspond to Rémez Remite (רמז). That is to say, we would then have bara’ ’Elohim ’eth created Elohim language-with-you 1:1b-d (ברא אלהים את) corresponding to Rémez Remite (רמז).

Finally, the physical world, and what piles on top of it, the heavens, for the earth cannot be understood but as a body, at the bottom of mind and spirit. It is Peshat Plain (פשט), with ’Elohim ’eth hashshamáyim ve’eth ha’áretz Elohim is language-with the heavens and dialogue-with the earth 1:1c-g (אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ).

A cue before moving on, and it’s that beth b (ב) and Bere’shith InBeginningOf (בראשית), are like education, like teaching science. The educator teaches and the student learns, but the teacher can’t learn for the student, that’s the half that the student contributes. After all, isn’t that the designation of The Holy Book HaSefer HaKodesh (הספר הקודש), namely, Torah Teaching (תורה)?

Now to the four interpretations of Bere’shith Genesis 1:1 (בראשית). There are four, does that mean that three are wrong, and one is right? Could it also be the case that they’re all right, in their own partial ways, with only one, entirely right?

If I were to choose how to distribute them, it would be as follows. Of the triad, I would identify the King James’ version with Peshat Plain (פשט), the hybrid Christian-Jewish one as Rémez Remite (רמז), and Rashi’s as Derash Discover (דרש). Of the whole, I would identify the interpretation we’re endorsing with Sod Secret (סוד). Overall, they would then comprise the PaRDeS PaRaDiSe (פרדס).

We are body, mind, and spirit. But, are we all there is? That is, living and inert are ultimately body, mind, and spirit. So, the question again is, is that all there is, body, mind, and spirit? No, of course not. There’s also the Divine.

So, then, is it safe to conclude that there is the Divine, by itself, and then, there’s the mixture of living and inert, better known as body, mind, and spirit? If so, we would then be in agreement that PaRDeS is verily the case.

Herein we would then have, of PaRDeS PaRaDiSe (פרדס), Sod Secret (סוד) the whole is the Divine, with the triad of the mixture, of PaRDeS PaRaDiSe (פרדס), as Derash Discover (דרש), Rémez Remite (רמז), and Peshat Plain (פשט).

The structure we’re suggesting is as follows: X; X, is; X made Y; Y is language; Y is dialogue-with these and d-w that. InBeginningOf is stand alone, as existential. Later on, it unfolds as subject and other roles.

For pedagogical reasons, we have limited our discussion to verse 1:1. Less is more: al buen entendedor, pocas palabras. Our version is: “InBeginningOf, created Elohim; dialogue-with the heavens, and dialogue-with the earth.” This, in turn, unfolds fourfold as: “InBeginningOf”; “InBeginningOf created Elohim”; “created Elohim language-with-you”; “Elohim is language-with the heavens and dialogue-with the earth”.

Before parting, one more thing. Just like it’s an accepted maxim that the Bible is self-contained; based on that, I would say that the Creation Story is self-contained, even more so. Everything after it is derivative, hardly can it be used as scaffolding to what preceded time itself.

Why does the Torah Teaching (תורה) begin with the Creation Story Bere’shith InBeginningOf 1:1-2:3 (בראשית)? Given that according to Rashi its purpose is to teach the Beney Yisrael Children of Israel (בני ישראל) the Mitzvoth Commandments (מצות). Coming from a rabbi, his view is as RM 2222. Ours, by contrast, is less winding; simply put, it was given to humanity, first and foremost, and, only historically, to a particular people worthy of it.

Anything beyond this, carrying the discussion further, is above me, in any case, so I drop the ball to mind my own business. It isn’t even addressed to anyone, or anybody, but to ’Adám Adam (אדם), a sort of hermaphrodite; humanity, as such, wasn’t even around, appearing but until the second Creation story 2:4-24.

The Torah Teaching (תורה), and its core message PaRDeS PaRaDiSe (פרדס), is nobody’s and everybody’s. It was put out there first, then given to Ha’Adám The Adam (האדם), and only much later to an ancestry.

However, once this is settled, we need to move on to verses 1:1-3, and from there onwards up to 1:5, to complete one day, and yonder. Of course, covering all this would definitely be outside the scope of a campaign site.

The takeaway of all this is simply that the one step is the most important, for the second step follows the first, and so on. The one step is the cornerstone, square one, determining what is built on top of it thereafter. The final outcome of civilization depends on getting it right from the very beginning of, that is, from absolute time equal to zero.

Much has been said above, so far, rests only to put all this in a neat manner for ease of consulting. This we now proceed to display in synoptic slide format.

We can communicate, it helps that we are speaking in the same language. But, why does it work? Well, in grade school our teacher taught us to express our thoughts in sentences, that these are made up of subject, verb, and object/adjective. But, where do we know this from? I endorse Revelation to Moses at Mount Sinai, that it must be from the first document, the Torah Teaching (תורה). The Creation Story is about teaching us how to emulate Creation in turn. Lesson one is alef a (א), second lesson is alefbethgimel abg (אבג), third lesson is Bere’shith InBeginningOf (בראשית), and so on. And, how do we know it?

Let’s see, in bara’ti I created (בראתי). This is perfect aspect, meaning completion, not past tense, in time, as no longer valid moving forward. By gematria we know the following to be accurate, as far as we can tell, (ב2-ר200-א1-ת400-י10 = בראתי613). From this the sages conclude that this would require fulfilling the 613 Mitzvoth Commandments (מצות). Since no one is obliged to do the impossible, given the present-day ground conditions, there must be another interpretation. If we keep doing the math, and simply add across we get (6+1+3=10). This is one removed from one; that must be referring to us, since we know to whom the One refers to.

But, how do we know it? Because we’re supposed to finish the job, which means as above interpreted to mean PaRDeS Universal ReConstitution for World Repair.

This PaRDeS business is nothing new. It has been around for at least fifteen hundred years. The sages knew it all along, but were under the prohibition of divulging it. That was then, now is now. It’s out there now.

Yours truly, Ricardo Turullols-Bonilla

The Austin Cry: be the Cause, join the Movement, PaRDeS Universal ReConstitution for Washington and World Repair!

Visit www.Ric4USH21.comwww.PaRDeSism.com, and get my book “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101” in English and Spanish translation, in paperback and digital.

Thank you, so very much. God, bless.

005* Spearhead of: Creation Story – PaRDeS – Bere’shith Genesis 1:1

The Austin Cry: be the Cause, join the Movement, PaRDeS Universal ReConstitution for Washington and World Repair!

Visit my websites www.PaRDeSism.com,  www.Ric4USH21.com, podcasts with pdf, or at iTunes and other platforms.

I have a calling, born out of enthusiasm; a book to deliver, “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”; and a job to get done, place the cornerstone of civilization for the III Millennium!

Title: “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”

Subtitle: (PaRDeS primevalism ~ treeseeding our original common-sense on the Bible’s Creation Story 1:1-2:3; Universal World ReConstitution, from Crisis City to PaRaDiSe Earth)

Author: Ricardo Turullols-Bonilla.

Where: At Amazon, in paperback and digital, in English and Spanish translation.

What we create, here and now, reconstitutes the universe!

005* Spearhead of: Creation Story – PaRDeSBere’shith Genesis 1:1

Dear Friends of Dialogue:

Herein we will give you a taster, to whet your appetite, as to what is PaRDeS, where it actually comes from in the Bible Creation Story 1:1-2:3. However, in spite of this brief being introductory, we will not leave out the Hebrew, including the Hebrew transliteration into the Latin alphabet, besides the usual English translation, obviously, though with changes that I deemed personally necessary.

I consider that getting used to seeing the original Hebrew, harnessed user-friendly by transliteration, alongside the English, will, on the long run, go a long way to making the kind and diligent listener and reader, more proficient on the Bible at hand.

Overall, my recommendation is to go back and forth between both websites, below mentioned. Also, once feeling comfortable, by all means, delay no more and delve deeply in my book “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”. It has a rather lengthy subtitle that professes to tell the whole narrative, namely, “(PaRDeS primevalism ~ treeseeding our original common-sense on the Bible’s Creation Story 1:1-2:3; Universal World ReConstitution, from Crisis City to PaRaDiSe Earth)”.

Is my book well written? Well, if you ask me, no, definitely not. Any inquiry, original, trailblazing, is initially far from easy reading. It wasn’t because I didn’t try, or care. I had my hands full, trying to make sense of my feelings, and interpreting my thoughts into legible language, trying to birth it, in the first place.

Somehow, by way of both these websites, www.Ric4USH21.com and www.PaRDeSism.com,  that I am now trying to make up for it. Taking it from hostile, enclaved, to amiable. Of course, the proof is in the practice; meaning: to the degree that my constituency embraces my supposed contribution to solving the crisis that has civilization in shackles.

Let me give examples to illustrate specifically what I mean. Commencing with including Hebrew all across the board. By way of contrast, even Jewish authors, addressing a captive audience by birth, wishing not to dissuade, avoid using Hebrew outright, preferring plain transliteration. I’m talking about an audience of born Jews, where most likely, some are fluent. I, on the other hand, use it right, front, and center, never missing an opportunity to display it.

Some close friends of mine, out of sincerity, though perhaps not, have advised me to leave out the original Hebrew entirely. That it may alienate potential readers; that it’s bad for business.

But, how can I omit it? How can you avoid the medium and still deliver the message? They are inseparable, the Holy Book HaSefer HaKodesh (הספר הקודש) and the Sacred Language Lashon HaKodesh (לשון הקדש), as I learned the hard way, not to mention the ’Éretz HaKodesh the Holy Land (ארץ הקודש). So much is lost in translation, and the further back you go, the more this maxim is accentuated.

Additionally, it is hard writing something down, when, I myself, am having difficulty understanding it. It is not something I already knew, and am striving for a more pedagogical manner of conveyance. It’s early work, imperfect by nature, brute, still with the wild call in it, like an uncut gem.

As for the delivery of instruction, I am trying my hardest to make the recording briefs as sequential as prudence would seem to have it. However, if you find the ride a bit bumpy, and jumpy, at times, it’s not for lack of exertion on my part. I must confess, that going from wearing a writer’s cap to a campaign helmet is not as easy as it sounds. I am still climbing, tooth and nail, up the learning curve to earn your vote and support, and, hopefully, eventually convince you to accompany me beyond the scope of the election, to the greater world arena.

~

A point to please bear in mind, is that the spoken word is an aid to the written word. The podcast is the popularization of the book. PaRDeS Universal Reconstitution for Washington and World Repair, the podcast, is the practice, of which PaRDeSism, the book, is the theory. The written word is more thematic, the spoken, is more topical. Actually, both website pages may serve the purpose of introduction to my book.

The two websites are, firstly the campaign page mentioned above, www.Ric4USH21.com, short for Ricardo for United States House of Representatives District 21. The second one, though first in time, is the global page that I use to promote the bigger picture view of things. It is simply named www.PaRDeSism.com, same as the first part of the book’s title. Of course, not case sensitive, just capitalizing parts of it here in order to facilitate its reading.

So, then, moving on. PaRDeSism is Israeli, and, is not Israeli. It is, in the sense that it is the contribution of Moses to humanity, as laid out during Revelation at Mount Sinai to the Beney Yisrael Children of Israel. It is not, in the sense that nobody owns it. It was given to humanity, entrusted to the Beney Yisrael Children of Israel, and charged with making it intelligible. PaRDeS is the entry 101 level to the Torah Teaching (תורה). At least that is the finding in my work “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”.

~

As regarding my approach, I would mention that it is that of a scientist, a philosopher, a humanist, a seeker of primeval common-sense, and not least, as an educator. I take from what, and where, I see, serves the purpose of fulfilling my calling.

I am a physicist by training, understood antiquity old-school to mean natural philosophy, and, I would take it a step further, archaically taken as human science. Moreover, take it to the very limit, that is, primevally as Kabbalah Reception (קבלה), reception of the original tradition since Revelation to Moses at Mount Sinai.

While I may have forgotten many of my research-level math and physics knowledge, the equations and the laws and the algorithms, and what not, proper to the profession, nevertheless, what still accompanies me is the problem-solving skills spirit. By this I’m referring to such things as modeling, so prevalent in my work, as is the case with the ellipse and the right-triangle, or bubble and triad, respectively.

 ~

At times, it is true that one can convey better by way of a story. With the kind permission of the listener, allow me to start my narrative by way of comparing it to polar bear living on a floating ice sheet, on an iceberg. As far as the white bear is concerned, he is living on ice. And all that he cares about is that it is a good vantage place to hunt seals.

But we know better, that the floating ice sheet that houses the polar bear, is actually just the part of a chunk of surfacing ice. Lucky for our buddy, its house is going to be around for quite a while, for as the top melts, it would be replaced by the next layer down, and so forth, to the very bottom of the heap of ice.

Same here, the iceberg below sight is the book “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”, the sheet of ice is the podcast “PaRDeS Universal ReConstitution for Washington and World Repair”. We get to play the part of the polar bear, and, the seal, gets to play the part of our sustenance.

The citizen of a polar bear lives off topical events, which cannot be understood in isolation, but by the light of the theme of our time of primeval common-sense, that keeps it all afloat.

~

We use language on a daily basis, not knowing how come. We learn it, by being part of a community of dialogue, however much, on the passive end of the conversation. Just because we use it, doesn’t mean we understand it; any more than just because we can drive a car, doesn’t mean we know what’s going on under the hood, or, behind the dashboard.

There is the composite part, the triad, that we understand, thanks to language, and, there’s the whole, the bubble, that we don’t, because it’s Sod Secret/Silent (סוד).

~

So much for the introduction, and I apologize for the delay. In a way, I feel bad doing it injustice. But, I promised to deliver what is PaRDeS, as found in the Creation Story Bere’shith Genesis 1:1-2:3. Now I proceed to do just that. A caveat, it is not easy reading, mostly on account that it goes against the grain of what we’ve been taught since grade school.

In order to be able to identify what is it that we’re looking for, we had to make a great excursion. As if approaching by walking backward towards it, we have had to rely on Pythagoras as stepping stone between our dual culture, the West, heir of the School of Athens, on the one hand, be it via Newton, and, on the other hand, the Near East, Jerusalem Israel. This we have already covered in a previous brief.

Additionally, we are all embedded in our environment, for education is the baton of culture in the race of civilization. We all went through English Language Arts, and other core subjects as well, including Science, Math, and Social Studies. We know grammar, the rules of sentence construction.

As an aside, perhaps some of us have, on occasion, found useful a cheat-sheet. That piece of paper that we fold ever many times with key information to the probable questions to be assessed in some time or other. Well, this accordion insight is all we need to have with us to embark on the adventure of a lifetime.

In what follows we’ll be providing a brief, a skeleton if you will, of the ultimate origin of PaRDeS. For a more robust account, I recommend the diligent reader to consult directly the source of my book. That said, let’s preface by adding that of the seven days of Creation, there is one day (1:1-5), second day (1:6-8), third day (1:9-13), and so on, but, there’s no first day! We will mention certain nuances in passing, but not park explaining them, for reasons of economy of time.

All and everything is important, but certain things are more so than others. Everything builds on what came previously, down to the cornerstone, the bottom-line, PaRDeS, the four-tiered notion. One day is one, because all happened on it, the remaining days are its fleshing out. Of one day (1:1-5), regarding the object of this brief, the relevant verses are 1:1-3. Of this set, beyond a doubt, the prime verse is 1:1. And, of this one, by far, it is the very first word, namely, 1:1a.

This is verily, the one word, more so, than, a first word. This one word is made up of three parts, like a triad, with the bottom part of its first letter pointing backwards to a virtual fourth part. This latter one is the first (or one?) letter of the Hebrew alefbeth, álef a (א). This one letter happens to be silent, when appearing in a word, and for a reason. This one letter, in turn, is composed out of three parts, a diagonal, and an upper and a lower vertical. The whole narrative of the Creation Story actually has its start right here, behind the curtain, as it were.

The second letter of the Hebrew alefbeth is beth b (ב), with its lower part pointing backwards, as mentioned above, and its upper part pointing up, with its mouth open towards the front. This, coupled with the third letter gímel g (ג), our letter c, suggestive of a person walking, can be interpreted as symbolically stating: don’t look, down-&-back, rather, move, up-&-forward.

Not surprisingly, the first letter of the first (one) word, Bere’shith Genesis (בראשית), starts with the aforementioned second letter beth b (ב). The reason this is so should be clear in light of the previous explanation.

Now to translation. In order to make any progress, making sense of the spirit, one has to start by taking the Greek influence out of the original Hebrew text. Bere’shith (בראשית) translates as InHeadOf (ב-ראש-ית), not as Genesis, Greek for beginning. This, as we saw way above, is problematic leading into painting ourselves into a corner with all that about the Eternal Universe of the infinite regression, and so on. Quite contrary to the very message of Revelation, beginning with the Creation Story of Bere’shith Genesis (בראשית) 1:1-2:3.

The Hebrew Bible scroll is written with consonants only. However, later on the Masoretes, a group of Jewish scribe-scholars, devised a way of putting vowels and pauses to facilitate its usage, without altering the original text. The vowel signs are called Nikkud Point/Dot (נקוד), and the cantillation Ta‘amey Hammikra’ Symbols of accents (טעמי המקרא), or simply Te‘amim Tropes (טעמים).

Regarding interpretation, again the issue of translation in the grammar, there’s this word known as direct object marker ’eth (את). It happens to be the case that it starts with the first letter of the alefbeth, álef a (א), and ends with the last one, tav t (ת). This I interpret as language, that is, as ’eth language (את), rather than as ’eth direct object marker (את).

In the text, it will be put as dialogue-with-you, or simply, as language-with or dialogue-with, since it means the same thing. This on account that ’eth (את) is equally translated as “language”, as previously mentioned, as well as “with”, and “you”, masculine singular personal pronoun.

I don’t want to bore you with more subtleties. Let’s, instead, take the plunge. In what follows I will write the Hebrew without vowels and tropes; instead, include these in the transliteration and translation, by way of accents and usual punctuation signs, begging the reader to fly to the Internet to an appropriate Hebrew Bible website for the full version.

Here, we are not going to sweat the small stuff, focusing instead on the big picture view of things. However, I will write Bere’shíth, instead of Bre’shíth, and ve’éth instead of v’eth, for ease of pronunciation. The álef a (א), a silent letter, is transliterated as (’), end of single quotation mark, as is clearly visible in the text below. This shouldn’t be confused with the other silent letter, with no equivalent in English, áyin (ע), that we transliterate as (‘), beginning of single quotation mark.

The Hebrew transliteration is in italics, the English in regular font. When citing, I will first place the Hebrew transliteration, the English translation in-between, and then the Hebrew, in parenthesis, in that order, to save on quotation marks. Lastly, recall that Hebrew is written right-to-left, English, left-to-right.

We will pack light to travel fast. After all, this is a political campaign site, but still, we have to first dig the foundations before we get to the slab, and later, elevation of the legislative proposal of PaRDeS Universal ReConstitution for Washington and World Repair. No one starts building a house by the roof, but from the foundations, exception noted, perhaps, of the usual campaign parties, Republican and Democrat, that start the day by putting on their hats first. Pun not to be taken seriously, of course.

Back on focus, in the title, for facility of identification, I will continue using Genesis, though will employ InHeadOf in the actual text.

Also, I will not translate the Hebrew ’Elohim, leaving it simply in English as Elohim. I will leave it to the listener any changes in the actual reading. The reason is that literally it is plural, the -im s (-ים) ending, though takes a masculine singular verb bara’ created (ברא). The philosophy is built-in the grammar, from get-go.

Recall that there’s no capitalization in Hebrew, all is lower case, adding to the difficulty of translation. Exception noted is the very first letter, our tour-guide, the beth b (ב) 1:1a. I will write the first (one) word Bere’shith (בראשית), as is constructed, (ב-ראש-ית), that is, as InHeadOf, instead of Inheadof, so as to highlight its composition.

Normally all verses are split into two parts, below we’ll use the semi-colon (;) for that purpose, and all end with a colon (:). The commas (,), we will use in place of the cantillation tropes. Of course, actual tropes are musical strings of notes, which we will cautiously omit. All translation is already interpretation. Hopefully all these caveats should suffice, moving forward with our task at hand. I will place accent marks for the time being.

Now we quote our verse in question:

Bere’shith Genesis (בראשית) 1:1

(בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ:)

Bere’shíth, bará’ ’Elohím; ’eth hashshamáyim, ve’éth ha’áretz:

InHeadOf, created Elohim; dialogue-with the heavens, and dialogue-with the earth:

Now, comes the fun part.

Off the bat, the very first problem is with the very first word. It ends with –ith of (-ית). But, how can that be, if immediately following is bará’ created (ברא)? It simply doesn’t make sense. Literally it reads as follows: InHeadOf, created, or In-Head of, created. It would seem that there’s something missing, to couple with the “of”.

Grammatically, this would be translated as “In the beginning of, created…” But, in the beginning of what? Well it doesn’t say, nor could it say. That’s the whole point of the Creation Story, the Big Bang, that clocks time at number zero.

Instead, there’s where the beth b (ב) mentioned above of pointing down-back, to the álef a (א), a silent letter, and signaling to walk instead up-forward, in consonance with the third letter gímel g (ג), our c. This thus avoids the stumbling block that Athens Greece faced of the celebrated Eternal Universe of the infinite regression of sorts.

That is, were it not for that, we would then have to effectively make an equivalent infinite regression ourselves. Say we said, “In the beginning of X”, we would then inquire, and, what came before “X”, Say, “Y” came before “X”, but then, what came before “Y”. You get the idea.

It leads nowhere, as proven in a previous podcast. This is telling us that there’s a divine, no-man’s land, symbolized by the álef a (א), the silent letter of secrecy. That it is simply beyond language, the medium of thought, to begin with. You may know it in your heart, but you cannot speak about it. The stuff of meditation, if you prefer.

Historically, within the tradition, the accepted interpretation is due to Rashi, a Middle Ages Torah Teaching (תורה) foremost Ashkenazi commentator from France. He is the standard in literal interpretations, being right 99.99% of the time. Fortunately, there’s a 0.01% chance for posterity.

IMHO, he gave a convoluted argument, reasoning that the first three verses actually comprise a complete thought, 1:1-3. Within his logic, the first word of 1:1 is parenthetical, a suspense, followed by verse 1:2, about the state of things, until the thought is completed in verse 1:3, with the creation of light.

What he did was interchange the genitive “of” with the conjunction “when”. Totally uncalled for, and unsupported by the text. Within Judaism there is another version, what this one does is change the verb instead, from “created”, perfect, to “creating”, participle, as well as switch the order of verb subject to subject verb. Not supported by the text either.

There are currently three accepted interpretations of verse 1:1. They are the following, I will only cite the English, since it is a question of translation, not appearing whatsoever in the actual Biblical text, obviously. The third interpretation simply ignores the genitive “of”, possessive.

These are as follows, starting with Rashi, followed by the alternative Jewish one, and finishing with the King James, mostly found in Christian Bibles. Additionally, at the bottom of the heap I will place our literal translation as well, the one previously quoted above. However, for purposes of comparison, I will translate “InHeadOf”, as is more customary, “In the beginning of”. I will include solely in the case of Rashi up to 1:3, but place in italics, since that is the complete-thought justification for his translation. I will continue using “Elohim” instead of “G’d”.

These are as follows:

1:1 When Elohim began to create the heavens and the earth: 1:2 the earth was unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep, and a wind from Elohim sweeping over the water: 1:3 Elohim said, “Let there be light”, and there was light:

1:1 In the beginning of Elohim’s creating the heavens and the earth:

1:1 In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth:

1:1 In the beginning of, created Elohim; dialogue-with the heavens, and dialogue-with the earth:

I harbor the opinion, that one shouldn’t, under any circumstance, add, or detract, from the Biblical text. Under this criterion, the first three interpretations are disqualified. The question now, is, how to interpret the fourth one above such that it makes actual sense.

As science teacher, not enjoying overabundance of knowledge on the subject, I would instead look for something that is ordinarily observed in the classroom, namely, the cheat-sheet. That piece of paper folded with answers and occupying little space, easy to hide, very useful when testing the memory. Now that we know where the accents go, I will dispense from their further use, except where customary.

My claim is that the text is to be read literally, but, requiring ironing it out first. Or, using modern IT parlance, previous to reading, decompressing it. After all, it is a source code. Like when you buy a new electronic device, you have to start by flipping the pages of the instruction manual, before watching your new TV set. Let’s follow the insight of the IT accordion.

~

The first fold is Bere’shith InHeadOf (בראשית). It is a stand-alone word, as signaled by the comma cantillation. This is amply justified bearing in mind the beth b (ב) argument above of its lower part pointing down-backwards, towards the silent letter alef a (א), with its upper part pointing up-forward, with its mouth opening forward in the direction of gimel g (ג), and so on.

The first fold would read:

Bere’shith InHeadOf (בראשית).

The second fold, with the first one already open, with the crease as covering the comma, would then read as follows:

Bere’shith bara’ ’Elohim InHeadOf created Elohim (בראשית ברא אלהים).

The third fold, bending back out of view the first fold, with the crease covering the semi-colon, and now exposing the next word, would read:

bara’ ’Elohim ’eth created Elohim language-with (ברא אלהים את).

The fourth fold, bending the first and second folds out of view, and now exposing the last set of words, with the crease covering the comma, would now read: (note: dialogue-with = d-w)

’Elohim ’eth hashshamáyim ve’eth ha’áretz Elohim is d-w the heavens and d-w the earth (אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ:).

In case it is not transparent, allow me to place the four texts, undisturbed by the explanations.

Zero-fold: alef a (א)

First fold: Bere’shith InHeadOf (בראשית).

Second fold: Bere’shith bara’ ’Elohim InHeadOf created Elohim (בראשית ברא אלהים).

Third fold: bara’ ’Elohim ’eth created Elohim language (ברא אלהים את).

Fourth fold: ’Elohim ’eth hashshamáyim ve’eth ha’áretz Elohim is dialogue-with the heavens and dialogue-with the earth (אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ:).

The above is making four separate statements, plus, the behind the curtains alef a (א), same that we’ve crossed out. These four statements are: InHeadOf; InHeadOf created Elohim; created Elohim language; Elohim is d-w the heavens and d-w the earth.

Now let’s proceed to put the translation together as verse 1:1, using the forward slash in instead of the previous punctuation marks, leaving the Hebrew unchanged, of course, but modifying the transliteration to adjust to the translation.

Verse 1:1 would now read:

~

(בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ:)

Bere’shith / Bere’shith bara’ ’Elohim / bara’ ’Elohim ’eth / ’Elohim ’eth hashshamáyim, ve’eth ha’áretz:

InHeadOf / InHeadOf created Elohim / created Elohim language / Elohim is dialogue-with the heavens and dialogue-with the earth:

~

In a nutshell, that’s all folks!

Now, if it’s still not all that clear, let’s make the connection with daily speech. Ordinarily we use the Divine, G’d, and we, as Spirit, Mind, and Body.

Better still, let’s make the connection with PaRDeS, which, after all, is the objective of this brief. But, instead of more writing, let’s recourse to our synoptic slides. Shall we?

Now that we’ve settled the interpretation of verse 1:1, in strict adherence to the

Biblical text, the next question is, now what? Well, simply put, verse 1:1 establishes the template that the rest of the Creation Story is to follow. While we won’t do it here, for lack of space and time, the case is that verses 1:2, and 1:3, and together verses 1:1-1:3, equally so follow this pattern. And the rest of one day, and all the remaining seven days, for that matter. That is, that the Creation Story provides us the cue to civilization, and that is PaRDeS PaRaDiSe (פרדס).

If you want to unravel a skein of yarn, you need to first find the tail of its beginning. It’s similar to the electromagnetic spectrum in physics, it just keeps going without end in either direction, beyond letters and numbers. But, a window of visible light opens, and we are able to take it from there outwards. We can spend a few minutes, or many hours, and either way it won’t make a difference, so awesome it is. Let’s, then, together do the first, and separately, each on its own, do the second.

My take on the matter, inasmuch as it’s possible to frame the infinite into language, is that verily it is the way out of the impasse that we’re presently paper-jammed in. That said, let’s, nevertheless, give it a try. Let’s try to make the connection, with, on the one hand, the above, and, on the other hand, something of our immediate experience, so that we can have a good handle of it all.

Starting with what comes before the beginning, with the álef a (א), the silent letter of the Hebrew alefbeth. This is just telling us that the place to begin will always be like the beth b (ב), pointing us forward, as the walking gimel g (ג), our letter c, suggests. Unless, that is, what you’re really after is losing your mind. This we identify as 1:1, álef a (א), PaRDeS PaRaDiSe (פרדס), the square of frame, the infinite, and the absolute. The closest I can point to would be the index finger of the Creator, as portrayed in Michelangelo’s Creation of Adam fresco.

Once that notion is left behind us, we move on to the insight, to the human heart, which doesn’t understand reason, captures things holistically, whole-wise. Of course, this is such that you know it in your heart, but can’t pass it on. Like love, you know when you’re in love, but can’t give an account of it, other than through poetry, which doesn’t even come close to it, anyway.

Or, alternatively, you know that you are, what a program, a robot, can’t know. However, it can fake it, and even fool anyone into believing it, but will never get there, not any time ever. All this we identify as 1:1a, Bere’shith InHeadOf (בראשית), and represent it by Sod Secret (סוד), the ellipse of the whole, corresponding, in turn, to the Divine, and, the sphere of religion proper.

Now we come to the human triad, to the brain, our organ of thinking, that is best described as having two hemispheres, and a linkage. This is popularly better known as right-brain, left-brain, and mid-brain, making up the whole-brain. For the following we’re deeply indebted to the triad of Pythagoras, our familiar right-triangle of the Pythagorean Theorem.

Previously we made the connection between the ellipse and the right-triangle, now we’ll rely on it as well. Following our train of thought, next we will identify 1:1a-c, Bere’shith bara’ ’Elohim InHeadOf created Elohim (בראשית ברא אלהים), with Derash Discover (דרש), that is, with the vertical side of the right-triangle, corresponding to the Spirit, and to Philosophy.

In continuation with our organ of thought, it’s the turn of the mid-brain. Now we identify 1:1c-d, bara’ ’Elohim ’eth created Elohim language (ברא אלהים את), with Rémez Remite (רמז), corresponding to the Mind, and to Science.

Last on the list, would come the left-brain. Now we identify the closing words 1:1d-g, ’Elohim ’eth hashshamáyim ve’eth ha’áretz Elohim is language-with the heavens and dialogue-with the earth (אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ:), with Peshat Plain (פשט), corresponding to the Body, and to Technology.

A point of order here, just a matter of dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s. Rabbinic tradition, within Judaism, uses PaRDeS, but, to the best of my knowledge, uses it differently, assigning it a different role in the bigger picture view of things. A very minor role, I would add, as compared to that one that we herein assign, nothing less, than the very cornerstone of civilization!

Like separate layers, they make the further connection of PaRDeS with other passages of the TaNaKh Bible (תנ׳׳ך), quoting from Nevi’im Prophets (נביאים), and from Ketuvim Writings (כתובים). This practice is very well attested in the Talmud Instruction (תלמוד), Halakha canonical Jewish religious law (הלכה), and in the Midrash (מדרש) and Aggadah canonical Jewish non-legalistic literature (אגדה).

While this may very well be the case, herein, we would then need to distinguish one from the other. Let’s call the rabbinic one the Tree of life approach, leaving the mosaic, under the name of Seed of life. Connected, yes, yet, distinct. Theirs is more comprehensive, all across the board, while, ours, is restricted to the Creation Story. Ours puts the accent on connecting Moses with philosophy, science, and technology, while theirs, is more focused on internal religious concerns.

Ours is shallower by all measures, needless to say. However, it is anything but that. Our trend, mosaicism, to distinguish it from the broader of rabbinism, in a way, is a resurfacing of a movement that prospered in Spain, but was put out with the Jewish expulsion in 1492, and thereabouts elsewhere. It is become more generally known as Kabbalah Reception (קבלה). By reception it is referring to that tradition started by Moses at Revelation on Mount Sinai. Of course, our scope is limited to the spearhead of the Creation Story.

It would be presumptuous on my part to say it forms part of Judaism, unless, and until, it was actually endorsed by the community. Similar, or parallel, would be Spinoza’s thought. It is not Judaism, by a long shot, being the case that he was expelled, but does hold kin to it, absolutely. And the same could likewise be said of the writings of other contemporary thinkers, of Jewish thematic.

While there’s a lot of material out there on the subject, perhaps, this snapshot of yours truly may motivate the listener to take a peek at my modest contribution. My hope is that this taster has whetted their appetite to want to know more about the Bible Creation Story.

Last thing before we part company, for it wouldn’t be complete without as much as a glimmer of an assessment. As feedback, homework, if you will, for life is a classroom. Please do the synoptic slide for a pencil. After all, my teaching environment is home of the pencil culture.

Let me get you pointed in the right direction. Given, a created pencil, which we then perceive as a whole pencil. Now follows the idea pencil, the idea of pencil which allows us to distinguish it from that of pen, however much we can write with both; then the word pencil, which we use to communicate; and, finally, the thing pencil, the one we actually use to write on a piece of paper.

Well, we have to leave it here, however painful it is to suspend something so rewarding, personally, and otherwise politically. A promise made is a promise kept. A quick recap. What we have done above is demonstrate that verse 1:1 establishes the source code, that is, PaRDeS, and that it is as represented above employing the Seed Model.

Yours truly, Ricardo Turullols-Bonilla

The Austin Cry: be the Cause, join the Movement, PaRDeS Universal ReConstitution for Washington and World Repair!

Visit www.Ric4USH21.comwww.PaRDeSism.com, and get my book “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101” at Amazon, in English and Spanish translation, in paperback and digital.

Thank you, so very much. God bless!

004* Nothing explains Creation; but, the Bible Creation Story explains everything!

The Austin Cry: be the Cause, join the Movement, PaRDeS Universal ReConstitution for Washington and World Repair!

Visit my websites www.PaRDeSism.com,  www.Ric4USH21.com, podcasts with pdf, or at iTunes and other platforms.

I have a calling, born out of enthusiasm; a book to deliver, “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”; and a job to get done, place the cornerstone of civilization for the III Millennium!

Title: “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”

Subtitle: (PaRDeS primevalism ~ treeseeding our original common-sense on the Bible’s Creation Story 1:1-2:3; Universal World ReConstitution, from Crisis City to PaRaDiSe Earth)

Author: Ricardo Turullols-Bonilla.

Where: At Amazon, in paperback and digital, in English and Spanish translation.

What we create, here and now, reconstitutes the universe!

004* Nothing explains Creation; but, the Bible Creation Story explains everything

Dear Friends of Dialogue:

Everything has a beginning, or else, it doesn’t, in which case, it has always been. This seems to follow since a Universe does exist, unless you deny its existence. The question then is, what’s with this beginning concern, and why should we even care about it at all?

The bottom-line of, it doesn’t have a beginning, is that the whole wide Universe has always been. This line of reasoning comes from the side of Athens Greece, known as the Eternal Universe, as distinct from that proceeding from Jerusalem Israel, known as Creation Big Bang.

The philosophical position of the School of Athens is known as the eternal regression argument. Today got started yesterday, yesterday got started the day before yesterday, and so on, you get the idea. This infinitely regressive line of thought has no beginning, it just keeps going further and further back in time. The argument was, that since infinity has no beginning, the Universe, likewise, has no beginning. Simply put, it has always been. End of argument.

The consequences of the Eternal Universe are no Creation, no Creator, no creatures. There are no personal relations whatsoever. Things just are. They are what you make of them, nothing in themselves.

While this argument might put anybody against the ropes, at a first bout, its magic is dispelled once we start questioning its footings. It has as much support as a brush hanging from the wall.

Argument it is, but, what is argument? Argument is reasoning, but, whence reasoning? In consonance with the primary argument, we could likewise reenact it here, and say, that reason comes from logic, logic comes from math and language, and math and language comes from, well, numbers and letters have always existed, somehow. The main argument fleshes out in its partial arguments.

Irrespective of the argument, whole or pieces, the point being is that it explains nothing, merely phases out all and everything.

This self-sustaining reason has its merits, without a doubt. Like if you want to go from here to there, or, plan from today to tomorrow, it works quite well. It has no problem with the finite. However, it gets into deep waters when it starts addressing the non-finite, or infinite. The problem is that infinite is not finite, it isn’t just a bigger finite.

To cut to the chase, my opinion on the matter is simply that what is limited is our reasoning. It has a range of validity, namely, the finite; and, beyond that, it simply doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. It leads us to some outlandish conclusions that are plain nonsense. Of course, one could object that the infinite doesn’t really exist, that all we have experience is of the finite. That all there is finite. End of argument.

While this is stable, it is hardly convincing. We can no more proof the existence of the infinite any more that we can disproof it, either. To me, it sounds like stalemate, more than conclusion. If I had all the time in the world, like not going hungry, I could conceivably spend it till my batteries run out.

In any case, it’s now time to hear out the other argument. So far, we’ve entertained the philosophical Eternal Universe Infinite Regression argument of Athens Greece, now, it’s the turn of the Creation Big Bang argument of Jerusalem Israel.

But, let’s not start from scratch. Rather, see this as a relay race, of sorts. After all, we already know beforehand that the faith-science match is a draw, a question of personal choice, so, why even bother? I am not here to rediscover America, far from it. If anything, I’m here to snatch things out of the grip of the dead II and place it in the hands of a promising III Millennium.

The argument attributable to Athens Greece takes us as far as reason, and found no support thereafter. Consequently, the starting point for Jerusalem Israel, would be receive it, and run with it the following leg of the race of civilization.

But, before we move on, let’s give some recognition to Athens. After all, they took archaic magical thought and transformed it into antique rational thought, which was quite a jump, back in the days. In any case, it lasted from VI bce up to our XX ce. Quite an accomplishment, I would say. Our job, now, is to continue the task to completion, or at least, till our turn runs out and others’ is up.

Now to the first part of our claim, that nothing explains Creation.

The reason is simple, because there was nothing to explain with before Creation. But, don’t knock it until we’ve tried it.

So, then, the Creation Story must provide the reason of rational thought, the primeval common-sense upon which reason ultimately takes off.

Infinite regression just avoids the issue. Infinite regression, is it self-creation? Surely, we didn’t create ourselves, or the self, much less the Universe. In this context, what does an infinite regression, or rather, infinite regression, without the indefinite article, what could it possibly mean?

If you follow thorough, you will be well on your way to excellence.

Let’s now address the second part of our claim, that the Creation Story explains everything.

This essay is not meant to be a treatise, rather, a brief on the subject. The theme is spread out in various topics. Here we will limit ourselves to one more of its many facets.

As we were saying, the Greek thinkers reasoned wisely, and used quite arbitrarily infinite and finite, as was mentioned above. Since this was their stumbling block, let’s pick-up the dialogue where they tripped.

I am a physicist by trade, though understood old school as natural philosophy, prone to come up with complex models in order to simplify otherwise complicated things. So, bear with me, in what follows.

Their discourse gyrates about the infinite and the finite. Let’s, then, take this as our playing chips. If there’s infinite and finite, then, surely there must additionally exist their opposites, namely, the non-infinite and the non-finite.

To this you might object and level the observation that infinite is just a short way of saying not-finite, or non-finite. While this may very well be the case, words, once out there, take a life of their own, irrespective of their ancestry. And this case is no exception. So, then, we ensue.

This being the case, and having taught biology, immediately comes to my mind the Punnett Square. This is just a two-by-two hashtag, or table, composed of two rows and two columns.

Let’s then on the horizontal row place infinite and finite, and on the vertical row, likewise, place infinite and finite. If we now cross the terms we will get, moving left to right going down, infinite-infinite, infinite-finite, finite-infinite, finite-finite. As mentioned previously, we could have likewise employed on the vertical side, yes and no, and, in this case, we would have arrived at the following: yes-infinite, yes-finite, no-infinite, no-finite. We will put in cursive letters the first set to avoid migraines.

For those out there more visual learners, we will include the figure.

Now, once past the math, comes the fun part. By the way, as a reminder, I am not a mathematician, much less a logician. I like to think of myself as a human scientist, like from Human Science 101.

The point being that infinite-infinite is understood as really infinite, literally infinite; infinite- finite as non-literally finite, or not really finite, or else, ideally finite; finite-infinite, as not-literally infinite, not really infinite, or, only ideally infinite; and, finite-finite, as literally finite, as really finite.

Now, credit to whom credit is due. Then walks in Pythagoras of Samos, in Ionia, back in VI bce. You may object, pointing out that the School of Athens, the ones of the infinite regression argument of the Eternal Universe, came two hundred years later, around IV bce. Surely, they must have known about him. True. But one thing is to know about him, and quite another is to actually have understood him sufficiently to have assimilated his teachings.

Well, Pythagoras’ contribution to civilization of the Triad and the Tetractys changed everything. Too bad it has taken two millennia and six-hundred years to connect the dots. He is better known today by way of the Pythagorean Theorem of the right-triangle, of a-square plus b-square equals c-square.

Nowadays there’s the revised version thanks to complex variables, where we postulate the existence of a number whose square is negative one. Imagine that! From experience, we know for a fact that any number, positive or negative, when squared, gives a positive number.

And, while this is undeniably true, at least in the real world; what’s to stop us from postulating a non-existing world where the opposite is true. Of course, it’s not real. That’s why it’s imaginary! Complex numbers are such, they consist of a real part, and, an imaginary part. The link is by way of i-square equals minus-one.

But, back to our friend Pythagoras. His followers made the claims, not him, since he didn’t leave any writings behind. In particular, one made the claim that the virtue of things is a triad: strength, intelligence, luck. This by itself is quite unintelligible. Fortunately, goods things come in pairs.

A peer of his made a parallel claim, hypothetically regarding the same triad notion, that all things are composed out of unlimiteds, limiters, and, both, unlimiteds and limiters, or words to that effect. Recall in all this that all that has survived of their writings are mere fragments. Verily, this is hands-on archeology of the language imaginary.

Now, suddenly things start coming into focus. Let’s make the following matches: strength with limiters; luck with unlimiteds; and, intelligence with both, unlimiteds and limiters. In case you’re not quite sure, let me give you a pointer; try our modern vocabulary of body, mind, and spirit, and see if this helps.

Additionally, let’s furthermore make the following identifications: limiters with measurables, or finite; unlimiteds with non-measurables, or infinite; and both, unlimiteds and limiters, with both infinite and finite.

Finally, let’s put the pieces together. We would then have as follows: strength-body with limiters-finite; luck-spirit with unlimiteds-infinite; and, intelligence-mind with both, unlimiteds-infinite and limiters-finite.

But, you might rightly jump from your seat, and yell: but, you mentioned Triad and Tetractys! So far, you’ve only given an account of the Triad, but, what about the Tetractys? Where does this come into the narrative?

Well, thanks for asking, and this is where Moses, of the Creation Story, appears on stage. So far, on the one hand, the Triad makes the connection with Athens Greece, whereas, on the other hand, the Tetractys, correspondingly makes the connection with Jerusalem Israel.

At this point you have to either take my word for it, or else keep listening to the other podcasts to put together the crossword puzzle; or better still, read my book, or best of all, do all three as one.

Be it what it may, we haven’t yet finished with Pythagoras and the triads. My fear is that if we don’t camp-out on his triads, and get a good handle on them, we will be ill equipped to move on to higher ground. From my own personal experience, of discovery, were it not for the cue that the Pythagorean triads provided, I would have missed altogether the punchline of the Creation Story Bere’shith Genesis 1:1-2:3. Many before me oversighted it, and they were top-notch scholars.

That said, let’s proceed. Ready or not, here we go.

This first synoptic figure entitled “The Tetractys in the Triad”, is meant to illustrate the insight that the ellipse and the right triangle are intimately related. That the point of the right triangle traces out the ellipse. In this symbolic figure, which we intuit was Pythagoras’, the ellipse comes to represent the Tetractys, whereas, the right triangle would represent the Triad.

In the following figure, entitled “Mapping: Infinite-Finite Table => Tetractys-Triad Seed”, what we do is make a mapping, meaning, a one-to-one matching of the Infinite-Finite set unto the more user-friendly ones of PaRDeS, which come directly from the Creation Story Bere’shith Genesis 1:1-2:3.

In the figure following that, entitled “PaRDeS ~ Tetractys & Triad ~ Seed Symbol”, what we do is finish the transition from the Athens Greece infinite regression Eternal Universe model vocab to the Jerusalem Israel Creation Story narrative.

We have been using the term Israeli, not even Judean, from the kingdoms of Israel and Judea, instead of Jewish, an anachronism, name that appears only much later in Middle Ages Europe.

With this we conclude our claim that nothing explains Creation, that the Creation Story explains everything. This last claim we will showcase by way of numerous illustrative examples in what has preceded, as well as with what follows. But, now you are better equipped to do real-time thoughtful hiking.

In closing, we could state the following timeline: archaic magical thought, antique mental thought, and now moving forward, modern mosaic thought. By this last one we mean PaRDeS thought, springing from the Creation Story of Moses, Bere’shith Genesis 1:1-2:3.

Yours truly, Ricardo Turullols-Bonilla

The Austin Cry: be the Cause, join the Movement, PaRDeS Universal ReConstitution for Washington and World Repair!

Visit www.Ric4USH21.comwww.PaRDeSism.com, and find my book “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101” at Amazon, in English and translated into Spanish, in both paperback and digital.

Thank you so very much. God bless!

003* If you can talk & cook, then, you already know PaRDeS!

Join the PaRDeS Cause, and help the Universal ReConstitution Movement for Washington and World Repair!

Visit my website www.ric4ush21.com, podcasts with pdf, or at iTunes and other platforms.

I have a calling, born out of enthusiasm; a book to deliver, “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”; and a job to get done, PaRDeS Universal ReConstitution for Washington and World Repair!

Title: “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”

Subtitle: (PaRDeS primevalism ~ treeseeding our original common-sense on the Bible’s Creation Story 1:1-2:3; World ReConstitution, from Crisis City to PaRaDiSe Earth)

Author: Ricardo Turullols-Bonilla.

Where: At Amazon, in paperback and digital, in English and Spanish translation.

What we create, here and now, reconstitutes the universe!

003* If you can talk & cook, then, you already know PaRDeS!

Dear Friends of Dialogue:

Please allow me to start this brief by dispelling certain legitimate concerns you may have regarding having a good handle on the core notion of PaRDeS. This matter is of prime importance, for our whole Campaign message hinges on this key concept. Herein I will demonstrate in plain English that you already have a good handle on this key concept PaRDeS from get-go.

If you can talk, if you can cook, then you already know it. The reason is simply because it’s built-in, written in stone as it were, in our very hearts. If there’s a single word, compound word, sentence, or concept, that best describes the essence of what makes us what we are, what makes us humans, humans, then this acronym is PaRDeS.

Let’s start this adventure with a trip to the kitchen, one of my favorites places of a house. I eat, you eat, we all eat. One can get used to anything, except to not eating. That’s how important it is. And of eating, there’s dessert, what ends a good meal.

Let’s do a hands-on thought experiment. Let’s bake a cake.

Where to start? Let’s for the sake of expediency, go to the cupboard. Therein we find the ingredients. But before that we need a recipe. And, don’t forget, let’s actually start by mentioning the obvious, the cook. Together these three, baker, recipe, and ingredients, make up a fourth, the cake!

Let’s move on, that I hunger to take a bite and accompany it with coffee, or tea, or maybe you would prefer a glass of milk. So, then, say, I go to the Internet, or to an actual cookbook. There is says, “How to Bake a Cake”, followed by the Methods for making each of the four types mentioned: Vanilla Pound Cake, Chocolate Cake, Apple Cake (Pie?), Following Cake Recipes, and Community Q&A.

Let’s take it from the top with the easiest of the three cakes to bake. It numbers the steps, starting with Method 1 Making Vanilla Pound Cake. Heading the list comes, 1 Gather your ingredients…, 2 Preheat the oven to 325 oF …, 3 Grease a cake pan…, 4 Cream the butter and sugar…, 5 Add the eggs and vanilla, 6 Stir in the cake flour…, 7 Pour the batter into the pan…, 8 Bake the cake for an hour and 15 minutes.

Then it goes on to mention Method 2 Making Chocolate Cake. This is three steps up the ladder of difficulty, taking 12 steps, including number 12 Enjoy! Next comes Method 3 Making Apple Cake. By the number of steps, I would conclude it to be one bit harder, same number of steps, no mention made of enjoying. The last one isn’t actually a recipe, rather general guidelines, Method 4 Following Cake Recipes.

If by now you’re thinking that perhaps this guy hasn’t actually ever baked a cake. Let me tell you that your suspicions are not well founded; maybe not a cake, but I have baked bread, back in the days. And, now that I’m thinking about, I may actually try it sometime in the near future. And, yes, I have had plenty of cake slides in my time.

Well, back to the thought part, of the hands-on thought experiment. Though all is thoroughly mixed, one can, nonetheless, tell certain elements apart. Just like in a chemical compound, with proper care and procedure, you can distinguish its constitutive elements. Even quite ordinary common table salt, is actually the mineral Sodium Chloride (NaCl), made up of the elements Sodium (Na) and Chlorine (Cl). Technically it is an ionic compound made out of sodium (Na+) and Chloride (Cl) ions, as found in the Periodic Table of the Elements. So much for Chemistry 101A.

The point in the above is that, after all is said and done, all the elements in the 8 or 12 steps can be put into four catch-all sacks, imaginary of sorts. I will put these four sacks in quotation marks, to highlight them.

Let’s start with: Method 1 Making Vanilla Pound Cake. I would put it in the “Cake Sack”. Following is: 1 Gather your ingredients… This one is tricky, for there is an embedded one, implicit, in the explicit mention of the ingredients. I would detect as embedded the Recipe set of instructions notion. Thus, I would put it in the “Recipe Sack”. Next, I would single out the actual mentioned step, and put it in the “Ingredients Sack”.

The next step is 2 Preheat the oven to 325 oF … This one is tricky as well, and would require making an argument. From science, again, we have the equivalence of matter and energy, in various forms and levels. But keeping it simple, it would likewise go in the “Ingredients Sack”. The remaining steps, 3 to 8, or else 3 to 11, I would again dip them in “Ingredients Sack”.

However, the last one in Method 2 Chocolate Cake poses a problem, namely, step 12 Enjoy! This one I would dunk in the “Baker Sack”. Of course, there’s a lot more to baking than meets the eye, as any experienced cook knows full well. But even allowing for missing steps, like the proofing pin, or kitchen cookware, and the like, one would find, nonetheless, that all else likewise falls into one or other of the Four Categories, of “Ingredients Sack”, “Recipe Sack”, “Baker Sack”, and “Cake Sack”.

Now, momentarily, hold your judgement. I promised “talk and cook”. Let’s now deliver the first one, “talk”, having actually skipped the order, for “cook” comes second. For convenience sake, we will reserve the double quotations for the Sacks, and the single ones for the wording.

Without straying too far, let’s continue by eating the cake we just baked. The thought that comes to my mind is, ‘Family and friends enjoyed my chocolate cake for dessert’. Same as above, let’s come up with our Four Sacks, catching all there is, leaving nothing unaccounted for.

My suggestion, being the case that we’re herein talking about words, is: “Sentence Sack”, “Subject Sack”, “Verb Sack”, and “Adjective/Object Sack”. My claim is that we can fit all of the contents of the sentence in the above-mentioned set of sacks.

Starting with the whole sentence, ‘Family and friends enjoyed my chocolate cake for dessert’, I would place it in the “Sentence Sack”. Now let’s break it up for analysis, employing basic English 101A grammar. ‘Family and friends’, being the subject in the sentence, I would keep in the “Subject Sack”. Following the subject normally comes the verb. This case is no exception, I would place the verb ‘enjoyed’ in the “Verb Sack”. Lastly, I would safeguard ‘my chocolate cake for dessert’, in the “Adjective/Object Sack”. More precisely, it is direct object, not adjective.

But we could just as well have come up with a sentence such as ‘Family and friends enjoyed greatly my chocolate cake for dessert’, in which case ‘greatly’ would likewise fit in the same bag, properly distinguished.

Now, don’t press me too hard, after all, I am a science, not an English, teacher. But you get the general idea. Well, if I’m not mistaken, that pretty much takes care of all said. All is accounted for, the sentence, as a whole, in the “Sentence Sack”, as well as the sentence chopped up into the respective grammatical parts, namely, “Subject Sack”, “Verb Sack”, and “Adjective/Object Sack”.

Now, let’s hold it back no longer. Let’s jump straight to the conclusion, and do two things at once, for both are essentially the same.

Without any further ado, let’s cut to the chase. Since you’re probably a firm believer in saving time, and being the case that a visual is more user-friendly, I will go ahead and rollout both in the same synoptic figure.

Allow me to fleshout the above synoptic, tightly-packed, figure in an economical number of words. The top row of two refer directly to our core notion of PaRDeS. I just spelled out the acronym PaRDeS = PeshatRémezDerashSod, then translating it into English, as PaRaDiSe = PlainRemiteDiscoverSecret, underlining letters so as to highlight the acronym.

In the second and third rows, each of the four categories have different set of brackets for coding purposes, namely, {}/ [], (), and <>. The heading immediately below the ellipse corresponds to Sod Secret, namely, {Cake}, [Sentence], (Whole), and <Being>. Right underneath it, would correspond to the right triangle, the triad of parts, made up of DerashRémezPeshat DiscoverRemitePlain.

If you will, on the one hand, the whole ellipse of parts, and on the other, the triad parts of the whole. We’ll have more to say about this later on, suffice for the present. As is self-evident, all we did was spell out the acronym PaRDeS PaRaDiSe, from the whole ellipse, into its constituent triad of parts.

Once past this hurdle, nothing to fear: PaRDeS is just pure unadulterated common-sense. Now I must let you go, and trust you will have no problem moving on to catch the spirit of my campaign message in the previous slides as well as those to follow moving forward.

Once you’re convinced that the virtue of things is PaRDeS: PaRDeS is just ReConstitution.

We can now proceed with repairing Washington DC, and the whole wide world, while we’re at it, starting from District 21.

Hence, the lemma, join the Cause and help the Movement, PaRDeS Universal ReConstitution for Washington Repair.

Yours truly, Ricardo Turullols-Bonilla

 

Join the Cause and help the Movement, PaRDeS Universal ReConstitution for Washington and World Repair!

Visit www.pardesism.com, www.Ric4USH21.com, and find my book “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101” at Amazon.

Thank you so very much. God bless!

002* Bible Creation Story – PaRDeS, the cornerstone of civilization

Join the PaRDeS Cause, and help the Universal ReConstitution Movement for Washington and World Repair!

Visit my website www.ric4ush21.com, podcasts with pdf, or at iTunes and other places.

I have a calling, born out of enthusiasm; a book to deliver, “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”; and a job to get done, PaRDeS Universal ReConstitution for Washington and World Repair!

Title: “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”

Subtitle: (PaRDeS primevalism ~ treeseeding our original common-sense on the Bible’s Creation Story 1:1-2:3; World ReConstitution, from Crisis City to PaRaDiSe Earth)

Author: Ricardo Turullols-Bonilla.

Where: At Amazon, in paperback and digital, in English and Spanish translation.

What we create, here and now, reconstitutes the universe!

002* Bible Creation Story – PaRDeS, the cornerstone of civilization

Dear Friends of Dialogue:

The present is built on the past, the future is built from the present, which in turn, is founded on the past. Any way you look at it, starting from the present, any viable future growth plans, necessarily must have clarity as to its primeval origins.

The stumbling block of contemporary modernity is that it all leads to a fork in the remote past, and provides us with a double-standards. On the one hand, we have technology, science, and philosophy, originating ultimately from Athens, Greece, and on the other hand, we have religion, likewise, ultimately originating, but, this time from Jerusalem, Israel.

The unsurmountable challenge to scholarship has always been how to bridge this gap. That is, how to make the connection between Athens Greece and Jerusalem Israel. Contrariwise, we have to forfeit the unattainable holistic view of things. Settling, instead for this split of modernity of secular weekdays, Mondays through Thursdays, and sacred weekends, of Fridays, Shabbaths, and Sundays.

I, too, was trapped in this crossroads of civilization. Fortunately, every cloud has a silver lining. The toll that I paid was high. I quit my Ph. D. program on account of its being mathematical physics, not theoretical physics, as I would have liked. At one point, I too traveled overland to India, quitting my teaching job, and philosophy postgraduate studies, though this might have spurred me to inquire and yet didn’t provide the answers.

But, I pondered, there must be a way out of this labyrinth. It simply doesn’t make any sense. The world is whole, it’s our understanding of things that’s messed up, not the world. Or rather, our misunderstanding of things is what has things in bits and pieces. But, where is the cue? The cue to unravel the puzzle. That is the question.

But, it wasn’t until I came over to the States and discovered my remote roots, that I gained clarity on the subject at hand. As Hispanic, I share the history of Iberia. Well, it happens to be the case that Spain and Portugal have the most diverse populations. Starting with the native Iberians, of course, then, in my twisted timeline, came the Phoenicians, the Romans and the Carthaginians, the Jews, followed by Germanic tribes, then the Arabs. Then these Hispanics, of Hispania, the Roman province, stumbled unto America, and the mixture of natives, so-called Indian, and Conquistadores came about, resulting in today’s mestizaje.

Well, to make a long story, short, I always saw myself as half-&-half, more or less, of Spanish and Indian heritage. Having been brought up under this belief, it shielded me from finding the cue. However, change didn’t come, but until my arrival in Austin, Texas, a more diverse population, than my native Mexico, mostly what is called a testimonial culture, on account of the Aztec and Mayan influences. Well, it was only then that I came to see, that, my previously held belief was not accurate, however much ballpark precise it may very well be the case.

The thing is that Spanish is not just Iberian, the native population. Rather, that Iberian means having Germanic, Jewish, and Arabic heritage, to some degree or other. The reason I’m going through this genealogical narrative is because I am human, too human, and these things do matter, insofar as one’s identity does play a part in putting together one’s worldview of things.

Austin is not Mexico City. Over there, things are old-school, everybody is more or less the same, different shades of brown, granted, but basically, the same all-round. And, those who are not, pretty much stick to themselves, living as in a cloud of soap bubbles. Over here, quite the opposite is true, not altogether, but pretty much so. There’s the Whites and Blacks, as background melting pots, with Native American Indians as interstice pan, and on top of that are the Hispanics, the Jews, the Chinese, the Indians, the Arabs, the Asians, the Africans, the Europeans, and so on. You get the idea.

My discovery was that I share Jewish, Arabic, and Germanic blood. In what measure, I still have to do a DNA test, but that’s not the point. The thing is that cultural heritage goes beyond the specifics of tainting. Of course, each individual is different, independently of what the group might be. Vaguely I have come to realize that I have an inclination towards the Jewish, less so the Arabic, with traces of Germanic. The Jewish, evidently would come from the Sephardic, those who converted, or were converted, to Catholicism back in the year 1492.

For reference, the Sephardic Jews come from Spain and Portugal, and thereafter were received by North African and Arab and Islamic countries. On the other hand, the Ashkenazi Jews come from Germany, Protestant and Roman Catholic, and thereafter were received by Greek Orthodox Eastern Europe countries.

Fast forward, thanks to other-friendly AusTex that I touched base with the Hebrew Bible Torah (תורה). And it was here that my blind shades were removed. I had studied science in college, then philosophy as adult, and had a business in medical device technology, but I had not yet wholeheartedly encountered religion, in spite of having gone to Catholic schools up to Middle School, though been brought up as non-practicing. My encounter with The Holy Language Leshon HaKodesh (לשון הקודש), well past my prime, made the difference. If you want to see things with clarity, without contamination, you have to go to the original version of things. To each its own.

Previous to that event my belief was that these positions, the Greek and Israeli, were irreconcilable. However, these positions aren’t antithesis of each other, unless our world is essentially broken, which it isn’t. For, there’s nothing wrong with the world, if the Creator made it, it’s perfect. There’s nothing wrong with us either, for the same reason, if the Creator made us, we’re perfect as well.

Nevertheless, the world as we know is broken, corrupt, and misguided. How can that be? If the world and we are perfect, then imperfection must slip in through free will, which is nothing other than thought, for thought precedes existence. So, then, it must be only, our view of things, our understanding, or misunderstanding, of things that is flawed. The Mr. Magoo syndrome, if you will. It’s our lens of things that’s under a distortion. What makes things ever worse, is that it is iterative. Meaning, that the more we fix things, the more we make things worse.

Our sole job is making the connection between us and the world, and if we can’t even get that right, we are in a sorry state, hence the present-day perennial crisis of civilization.  The connection is thought, as mentioned above, which is just another way of saying reason. Reason, in turn, must be nothing other than primeval common-sense. So, then, where are we now?

By then, I had already done an incomplete Master’s degree research on the preSocratic thinkers, in Ionia, a Greek colony in Persian territory, today’s northern coast of Turkey, those thinkers that predated the surge of philosophy proper in Athens. There I had discovered three world-stature figures, namely, Thales of Miletus, founder of the Milesian School of the physicists; Xenophanes of Colophon and Parmenides of Elea, founders of the Eleatic School of being-is-and-not-being-is-not; and lastly, the most fascinating of the three, Pythagoras of Samos, founder of the Secret Sect, and School of thought, of the Tetractys and the Triad, respectively.

Well, the gist of the story is that the stepping stone, not only geographically, but also culturally, between, on the one hand, Athens Greece, Greek culture of humanism, and on the other hand, Jerusalem Israel, Jewish culture of monotheism, is none other than Pythagoras of Samos, the Secret Sect and School of Thought of the Pythagoreans. Yes, the same guy responsible for having to learn the Pythagorean theorem by heart of, a-squared plus b-squared is equal to c-squared. Imagine that!

The quick answer is that modern culture springs from the three thinkers of Antiquity, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle; these in turn, follow in the footsteps of Pythagoras, Xenophanes-Parmenides, and Thales; these in turn, and here’s the up-to-now missing link, they got their spark from solely a part of the kernel of the Mosaic Pentateuch Chumash (חמש).

That is to say, each emphasizing a particular aspect of the Whole, respectively. More to the point, the Milesians emphasized the body, the Eleatics emphasized the spirit, and the Pythagoreans twofold, namely, the Secret Sect, emphasized the divine Tetractys, which took off after the Mosaic tetragrammaton Jehovah HaShem (יהוה), whereas the School of Thought, emphasized the human Triad. The Mosaic kernel, as you might suspect, of the Torah Teaching (תורה), at the entry level, I must limit, is nothing other than PaRDeS.

I will have a lot more to say on this matter later on, but for the moment, suffice to say that PaRDeS, an acronym, stands for Body, Mind, and Spirit, and, the Divine.

One more point before I pause, and it should be more abundantly clear and evident by now, the need to put all this in visual synoptic format, for a figure verily saves pronouncing a thousand words. This we will now proceed to do, hoping that the listener and reader finds it in need of no further explanation.

In a nutshell, Modernity goes back, directly, to Athens Greece, then to Ionia, as missing in-between cue, and eventually, to Jerusalem Israel. And Israel is the Bible, and the Bible, ultimately, beyond later developmental beliefs, of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, rests on the five books of Moses, Pentateuch Chumash (חמש). Of these books, there is a first one, as is obvious, called Bere’shith Genesis (בראשית). This book is made up of Parashot Sections (פרשות), of which the first is, again, named Bere’shith Genesis (בראשית). Lastly, one more time, of this one, the very first word is Bere’shith Genesis (בראשית).

Just in case it is not clear, since it all occurred so fast. The point being is that ultimately, civilization, as the cultural heritage of humanity, at least limited to the West, rests on the cornerstone of the Creation Story, whose gist, human science 101 at least, is PaRDeS.

IMHO, my take on the matter is that the sages have known this all along, just never bothered to put it in lay terms that the average Joe and Jane on the street could understand. Like, in keep it simple.

This realization, that after all there is sense to the world, that the prevailing nonsense of our perennial crisis of civilization is due to a misunderstanding stemming from a historical discontinuity, was earth shaking to me, and has taken me close to forever to assimilate its significance. But, now once past the initial shock, the next thing is to share it. Call it out to the four winds. It cannot just lie within me, die with me, with nobody at least having heard of it once. As to what each of us does with it, once having made aware of its existence, is up to each individual, a personal choice.

In conclusion, allow me to put it in thesis form. The hard solution is the Fall, in its place I’m proposing a softer alternative. Simply put, PaRDeS is the primeval common-sense missing link, without which, we’re caught up with a double-standards nonsense of sorts. This is reminiscent of how the native American Indians characterized the settlers, “the white-man speaks with forked tongue”.

Let me put my thesis statement in perspective. Civilization, it all starts with the Creation story of the Bible. The Creation Story provides the bedrock to all of civilization. From it take off the preSocratic thinkers, as we explained above, and from these in turn, takes off the School of Athens of the big three, or triad, of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, the world-renowned philosophers. Ultimately, the West, as we have come to know it, of science and technology.

Newton takes over physics from Aristotle’s natural philosophy and turns it into mathematical philosophy, a return to Pythagoras. This goes on up to today’s state of science. This only proves the point we’re stressing, that ultimately, all goes back to Socrates and the preSocratics, who are indebted to the Bere’shith Genesis (בראשית) 1:1-2:3 Creation Story of Moses.

The sequence is as follows: religion founds philosophy, philosophy founds science, and science founds technology, as applied science. Let me say it one more time, forward speaking, as it were. Religion founds philosophy, philosophy founds science, science founds technology. Or backward speaking, as it were, that technology is founded on science, science on philosophy, and philosophy on religion. All three of the World’s religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, are founded on the Bible’s Creation Story of the Torah Teaching (תורה) of Moses.

For those who are more visual, I would place the divine, as a bubble, and within it, the human, as a triad, of body, mind, and spirit. This is just another way of saying, one, the Divine, and then secondly, the spirit, followed by the mind, and lastly, the body.

Overall, the four-level overarching scheme is PaRDeS, same that we represent as a bubble, the divine, and within it spirit, mind, and body, that put together as a right-triangle, of a triad. No more the disjunctive of the double standards, of faith and fact divide.

In what follows we’ll try to make the case that the way to go in reconstituting the social edifice is by way of PaRDeS. That is to say, PaRDeS Reconstitution for Washington and World repair.

In any case, for the most part, my discourse is centered in Bere’shith Genesis (בראשית) Bible Creation Story. It comprises in all thirty-four (34) verses, 1:1-2:3.

 

Yours truly, Ricardo Turullols-Bonilla

 

Join the Cause and help the Movement, PaRDeS Universal ReConstitution for Washington and World Repair!

Visit www.pardesism.com, and find my book “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101” at Amazon.

 

Thank you so very much. God bless!

001* I have a Calling to serve, a Message to deliver, and a Job to get done!

Join the PaRDeS Cause, and help the Universal ReConstitution Movement for World Repair!

Visit my website www.ric4ush21.com, podcasts with pdf, or at iTunes and other places.

I have a calling, born out of enthusiasm; a book to deliver, “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”; and a job to get done, PaRDeS Universal ReConstitution for World Repair!

Title: “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”

Subtitle: (PaRDeS primevalism ~ treeseeding our original common-sense on the Bible’s Creation Story 1:1-2:3; World ReConstitution, from Crisis City to PaRaDiSe Earth)

Author: Ricardo Turullols-Bonilla.

Where: At Amazon, in paperback and digital, in English and Spanish translation.

What we create, here and now, reconstitutes the universe!

001* I have a Calling to serve, a Message to deliver, and a Job to get done!

Dear Friends of dialogue:

Join the PaRDeS Cause, and help the Universal ReConstitution Movement for World Repair!

I am Ricardo Turullols-Bonilla, and I am running for the United States Congress for Texas’ District 21 in the House of Representatives.

Firstly, I have a calling to serve born out of enthusiasm.

It all started two scores and a few years ago, back in Mexico City, where I had a business making infant incubators. Suddenly, gaining an awareness, as if listening to soundness, that I was not meant to be making infant incubators, but, rather, incubators for the human spirit!

This was around my mid-life crisis, not an uncommon occurrence to embark on a second sailing. Verily, the wise books of antiquity say that the owl of Minerva takes flight at dusk.

I go a long way back and have a very diverse knowledge base. University of Texas at Austin, Physics B.Sc.; Imperial College London, Mathematical Physics DIC (Masters); Iberian American University MBA, Mexico City; and National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City, incomplete graduate studies in Philosophy.

As for teaching, I taught graduate level at the National Polytechnic Institute in Mexico City for three years, and going on twelve at Austin ISD since coming over. I started teaching science at the ALC, Alternative Learning Center, later at the Gardner-Betts Travis County Juvenile Justice, first at Detention, and of late at Leadership Academy, a residential long-term placement facility.

Secondly, to the message that I have to deliver.

I came to Austin back in 2002, and started writing right away, seven books up to date. The first two books came out as twins, “Friends of Dialogue (The quest of keeping the heart – a philosophy of practice)”, and, “Dialogue of Friends (Making sense of the human spirit – a practice of philosophy)”.

The intermediate ones were scaffoldings to the seventh book, with a watershed breakthrough book standing out, namely, “Triads (The preSocratic origins of dialogical science)”. However, it wasn’t but until the seventh book, that I finally felt having reached my quest. It is “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101 (PaRDeS primevalism ~ treeseeding our original common-sense on the Bible’s Creation Story 1:1-2:3; World ReConstitution, from Crisis City to PaRaDiSe Earth)”.

Third, and finally, to the Job that needs doing.

The buck stops with me, because I so choose. Change starts with me as well, here and now.

I couldn’t agree more with what the University of Texas at Austin says, “What starts here, changes the World”.

We are living the age when the perennial crisis of civilization transitions from chronic to acute phase. I witness everywhere and always, a broken, corrupt, and misguided world.

The fact of the matter is that we live in a globalized world, wherein, nothing changes, unless and until, everything changes. The takeaway in all this is not to let a good crisis go to waste.

Where there is a will, there is a way. As if out of the blue sky, opportunity presents itself. The incumbent representative for the US House district 21 decides to retire, after a long thirty years of service, leaving an open seat.

Top-down leadership from Washington by itself won’t do. What is needed is additionally a grassroots movement energized by a worthy cause.

So, then, where best to start changing things, if not at the very heartland of Texas, from Austin to San Antonio and the Hill Country?

Let’s start the ReConstitution, the PaRDeS Universal ReConstitution for World Repair.

 

Yours truly, Ricardo Turullols-Bonilla

 

Join the Cause and help the Movement, PaRDeS Universal ReConstitution for World Repair!

Visit www.pardesism.com, and find my book “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101” at Amazon.

 

Thank you so very much. God, bless!