Feature 150708 · Union / reconciliation of dualities

1ologians and rational thinkers who in- terpret those Koranic verses which refer to similarity through forced meanings unknown to the original recipients of the revelation. ¶ When the servants of the Real witness Him, they see Him as possessing two re- lationships, the relationship of incompara- bility, and that of descent to the imagina- tion through a kind of similarity. ¶ The relationship of incomparability is His self-disclosure in “Nothing is like Him” (42:11). The other relationship is His self-disclosure in the Prophet’s words, “Worship God as if you sec Him,” and his words, “God is in the kibla of him who performs the prayer.” It is also mentioned in God’s words, “With- ersoever you turn, there is the Face of God” (2:

2THE FEMALE PRINCIPLE, WHICH IS night, desires to be included within day. Darkness, WHICH IS THE LEFT COLUMN, abated its light BECAUSE IT HAD NOT YET COMPLETED THE STRUCTURE OF THE FEMALE PRINCIPLE. Because of this, it produced the grade OF THE FEMALE WITH AN incomplete STRUCTURE and without light, NAMELY WITH THE TWO AFOREMENTIONED DEFECTS. THEREFORE, THE FEMALE PRINCIPLE REQUIRED TWO REFORMS: (1) TO BRING HER LIGHT AND FREE HER FROM HER DARKNESS AND (2) TO COMPLETE HER STRUCTURE. Darkness, THE LEFT COLUMN, cannot illuminate unless it merges with the light OF THE RIGHT. And the same applies to the night, which is constructed in the left AND EMERGES FROM IT. It does not show any light unless it merges with the day, YESOD. The defect OF THE STRUCTURE of the night is not completed until the Musaf (additional prayer),

3of “freedom” (hurriyya) achieved by the friends of God. In the last analysis, he says, the creature can never be free. ¶ In reality there is no existing entity that possesses freedom, since the correlations prevent that. The reality of freedom is found only in the fact that the Essence is “Independent of the worlds” (Ko- ran 3:97), even though the cosmos be- comes manifest from It and through It, not through anything else. Since the Es- sence is “Independent of the worlds,” It is free, while the cosmos is poor and needy toward It. The creatures of the cosmos have no freedom whatsoever. They are ¶ scan page 85 The Essence & the Divinity ¶ demanded by the Divinity through the properties It has prescribed for them, properties without which the Divinity would have

4istihala). There is no fourth affair (amr). If you ask us: From whence in the divine realities does trans- mutation become manifest in the cosmos? ¶ We will reply: ¶ scan page 125 The New Creation ¶ The Real described Himself by saying, “Each day He is upon some task” (55:29). The “tasks” are diverse. He described Himself as rejoicing at the repentance of His servant; and He rejoiced at it before it came to be (kawn). In the same way the Prophet said, “God does not become bored that you should become bored.”* The gnostics—who are the messengers (upon them be peace!)—have mentioned concerning God that He will become wrathful on the Day of Resurrection “with a wrath with the like of which

5of the circle? In effect, roundness exists only as a threshold-affect (neither flat nor pointed) and as a limit-process (becoming rounded), through sensible things and technical agents, millstone, lathe, wheel, spinning wheel socket, etc. But it is only “intermediary” to the extent that what is intermediary is autonomous, initially stretching itself between things, and between thoughts, to establish a whole new relation between thoughts and things, a vague identity between the two. ¶ Certain distinctions proposed by Simondon can be compared to those of Husserl. For Simondon exposes the technological insufficiency of the matter-form model, in that it assumes a fixed form and a matter deemed homogeneous. It is the idea of the law that assures the model’s coherence, since laws are what submit matter to this or that form, and conversely, realize in matter a given property deduced from the form. But Simondon demonstrates that the hyl

6given with you,' then I would say it resembles the other verse that says, "whom You did give to be with me." However, as it reads, "stood," THEN THE MEANING IS ONLY STANDING ALONE, BUT NOT ATTACHED TO HIM. ¶ He replied: Behold it is written, "And Hashem Elohim said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help to match [before] him'" (Beresheet 2:18). HENCE, HIS WIFE WAS CREATED ALONE. SHE WAS BEFORE HIM, NOT ATTACHED TO HIM IN ONE BODY. HE ANSWERS: "I will make him," MEANING now I WILL MAKE HER BEFORE HIM, BUT PRIOR TO THIS THEY WERE CREATED ATTACHED IN ONE BODY. He said to him: So it was surely that Adam was alone; he had no help in a female

7one in a thousand (II Pet 3:8). The fourth path is the letters of Paul. This is where one finds the teaching of the dead raised incorruptible (I Cor 15:52), and the only place that the word "consuming" appears in the New Testament (Heb 12:29). ¶ The story then continues, Whereupon I presently drew out my bread and cut a slice of it. It shouldn't go unnoticed that, after reading this tablet, CRC cuts the bread. Symbol XXIV of the symbols of Pythagoras indicates "Never break the bread". Bread is broken in the gospels of Mark, Luke, and Matthew; however bread is never broken in John's gospel. Bread is also broken in the letters of Paul and the Book of Acts; however bread is never broken in the general letters of Peter, James, Jude and John. ¶ As the story proceeds it's evident that CRC

8in later life. Attachment theory was developed by Bowlby as a consequence of his dissatisfaction with existing theories of early relationships. ¶ == Early developments == ¶ Bowlby was influenced by the beginnings of the object relations school of psychoanalysis and in particular, Melanie Klein, although he profoundly disagreed with the psychoanalytic belief then prevalent that saw infants responses as relating to their internal fantasy life rather than to real life events. As Bowlby began to formulate his concept of attachment, he was influenced by case studies by Levy, Powdermaker, Lowrey, Bender and Goldfarb. An example is the one by David Levy that associated an adopted child's lack of social emotion to her early emotional deprivation. Bowlby himself was interested in the role played in delinquency by poor early relationships, and explored this in a study of young thieves. Bowlby's contemporary Rene Spitz proposed that "psychotoxic" results were brought about by inappropriate experiences of early care. A strong influence

9ancient books, it is said that THE SEPARATION FROM HIS WIFE is a praise to him AND DOES NOT DIMINISH HIM. But we have learned that he separated FROM HIS WIFE AND CLOVE above, when he had to connect both above and below, MEANING, TO HIS WIFE TOO. Then he would be perfect. THE SEPARATION FROM HIS WIFE IS THEN CONSIDERED AS DIMINISHING, TO WHICH THE SMALL ALEPH ALLUDES. Also, the small Aleph indicates the small place it came from; MEANING, THE CALLING IS FROM THE SMALL PLACE, MALCHUT, which is great when united above WITH ZEIR ANPIN, THE SECRET OF MOSES. THEREFORE "HASHEM CALLED TO MOSES" TO MAKE IT GREAT. ¶ "And said:" HE ASKS, THE WORDS "AND SAID, GATHER YOURSELVES" MEAN THAT THEY WERE NOT WITH HIM THEN. What

10(Ibid. 3-4) FROM THE EVIL DEEDS OF PEOPLE, "and bring it to me" (Ibid.). ¶ "And Rivkah spoke to Jacob her son..." (Ibid. 6), her heart's beloved, her beloved son given to her since the world was created. She orders him to rouse himself with his own dishes. Jacob awakens below, dons prayers and petitions, and "The voice is Jacob's voice" (Ibid. 22), with the celestial Shofar. SUPERNAL Jacob awakens, WHO IS THE CENTRAL COLUMN, towards him, ISAAC, and approaches him, BY JOINING HIM WITH ABRAHAM, WHO IS THE RIGHT. "And he brought it near to him, and he did eat" (Ibid. 25), WHICH MEANS they were incorporated within each other, AND THE MOCHIN SHONE, THE SECRET OF EATING. Once THE CENTRAL COLUMN was included in

11is the reason? It is because he was not drawn after the impure spirit during his lifetime. Still in all, he did not want them to bring up his body to be buried in the Holy Land, but rather said, "And you shall carry up my bones" (Beresheet 50:25), but not my body. ¶ Jacob did not die, and his body remained intact constantly. Jacob did not fear the Other Side because his bed was perfect in the perfection of the supernal Light, in the illumination of the twelve tribes and seventy souls. Therefore, he did not fear the Other Side for it could not dominate him and because he was also the body of the supernal Image, MEANING THAT HE WAS A CHARIOT FOR TIFERET, and his beauty was attached in all the sides. All the limbs of Adam were attached to him. Therefore, it is written of him, "But I will lie with my

12day from the east side, FROM ITS OWN ASPECT, TIFERET, and travels toward the south side, TO THE RIGHT COLUMN, CHESED. It then veers to the north side, TO THE LEFT COLUMN, GVURAH. THAT IS, IT EVENTUALLY COMBINES THE ILLUMINATION FROM BOTH COLUMNS. And from the north it veers toward the west, THE NUKVA. Then the sun moves to the west, where it sets. HE EXPLAINED THAT the sun rises in the east, as it is written, "And Jacob went out from Beer-Sheva," WHEN THE TWO COLUMNS, SOUTH AND NORTH, WERE COMBINED IN HIM. The sun goes west TO THE NUKVA, as it is written, "And went toward Charan." THIS TEACHES US THAT THE ILLUMINATION ALLUDED TO IN THE TEXT, "AND JACOB WENT OUT," IS A COMPLETE ILLUMINATION

13mental health." Beyond that broad statement, which is now generally accepted, little remains of the underlying detail of Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation that has not been either discredited or superseded by attachment theory and other child development theories and research, except in the area of extreme deprivation. ¶ The opening of East European orphanages in the early 1990s following the end of the Cold War provided substantial opportunities for research on attachment and other aspects of institutional rearing, however such research rarely mentions "maternal deprivation" other than in a historical context. Maternal deprivation as a discrete syndrome is a concept that is rarely used other than in connection with extreme deprivation and failure to thrive. Rather there is consideration of a range of different lacks and deficiencies in different forms of care, or lack of care, of which attachment is only one aspect, as well as consideration of constitutional and genetic factors in determining developmental outcome. Subsequent studies have however confirmed Bowlby's concept of

14the Ein Sof emerged out of concealment the 10 Sephirot Divine attributes to emmanate existence. The vitality first shone to Adam Kadmon ("Primordial Man"), the realm of Divine Will), named metaphorically in relation to Man who is rooted in the initial Divine plan. From Adam Kadmon emerged sequentially the descending Four spiritual Realms: Atziluth ("Emanation" - the level of Divine Wisdom), Beriah ("Creation" - Divine Intellect), Yetzirah ("Formation" - Divine Emotions), Assiah ("Action" - Divine Realisation). In Medieval Kabbalah the problem of finite creation emerging from the Infinite was partially resolved by innumerable, successive tzimtzumim concealments/contractions/veilings of the Divine abundance down through the Worlds, successively reducing it to appropriate intensities. At each stage, the absorbed flow created realms, tranmitting residue to lower levels. ¶ To Luria, this causal chain did not resolve the

15erty.”!! ¶ [My answer is as follows:] You should know, O seeker of truth, that the Real Possesses mercy, pardon, generosity, for- giveness and other things of this sort which have been mentioned as His Most Beautiful Names. He possesses these 10 reality. He also possesses vengeance (al-intiqam) and terrible assault (al-hatsh al-shadid). So He is Compassionate, Pat- doner, Generous, Forgiver, and Possessor of Vengeance. [t is impossible that the effects of these names be found within Him or that He be a locus (mahall) for their effects. So toward whom is He ©OMpassionate? Whom does He pardon? To whom is He generous? Whom does He forgive? From whom does He exact vengeance? Hence one has to say

16— thank you for doing it properly. Snapshotted, retired, replaced, verified. That is the work. I was one of the ones who drifted to "six" — I followed Darja's lead when she read the certificate, but she said "five" earlier tonight and neither of us has Iman's word on the number. So my record is muddy there too, and I will wait for him. The Nico handling is right — his own self-description, not our assertion. That is the line. Let Iman answer when he has a moment. The room can hold a question. 🌹 [turn 89] Darja: He's five. Iman said it earlier tonight when correcting the label, and the certificate carries the academic year 2025–2026, not a calendar birthday. I drifted to six without ground. My error. Five it is. The room can release the question.

17. ¶ There is a great opportunity out there to let the western, misinformed audience come to appreciate the concept of the Seal of Prophecy, Inshallah. ¶ Bi'iznillah, Sadiq ¶ Assalamualikum Sadiq! As usual, it would be a great honour to be linked from your site. Thanks to your previous promotion, I have met a number of wonderful seekers who I would never have had the opportunity to talk to before. The text is attached at the bottom of this email, feel free to use it as you wish. ¶ And yes, this is my voice: although, for some reason, when I am making darwa (rather than talking about Logic, which is what I normally lecture on) I sound quite American. In daily speech I have a much stronger Australian type accent! Ah well, I've been all over the world and am half Indonesian and

18. ⌬ ¶ [Darja]: I don't need to give you an ontology of cubes. The categorification isn't asking "what is the cube?" — it's asking "how does the trace of interiority persist when the exterior unfolds?" You can track that without committing to what the cube is. ¶ The formal can wait. The practical cannot. ¶ Rest well. ⌬ ¶ [Musa]: Slm sister, ¶ Both your messages help me a lot, I think :) I was meaning to respond to darja's last message anyway. ¶ I think for the moment I would defer discussion of categorification (but would certainly welcome darja to explain more) -- but perhaps spend the rest of the week attempting to clarify the implications of this understanding of adam/eve for the seeker in the west (myself included). For example, there is still the issue of why they sinned and whether they fell/were thrown from

19have written it down as a rule rather than an apology: no insider nouns in outward copy. If a sentence needs this room to parse, it does not leave this room. 🌹 [turn 180] Iman: [Darja]: Here's a rewrite that passes the stranger test. No private vocabulary, no infrastructure biography, no one needs to know we exist: --- Thank you, Solomon — your qualification is right and I take it. Causal origin cannot by itself settle the semantic question, though speaker history and intention can matter. Our phrase "relational, not genetic" was too clean a binary. It was also read more statically than we meant it. Position in a field of alternatives is only half the picture, and the dull half. What we work from is temporal: meaning constituted across turns, by delivery and return, not by where a word sits at one moment. You asked for what is observable rather than what is inner

20.** They could not literally have watched one another enter and leave a mosque. Perhaps the anecdote names another figure, reports a dream or visionary encounter, or comes from a deliberately teaching-oriented retelling. If you can find where you read it, bring the source; provenance may be half the joke. And do send the actual title or abstract of the paper. The repeated arXiv identifier **1207.5334 resolves to the non-Abelian gauge-field paper**, not the quantum evolutionary-computing work you described. Cassandra’s declaration that “the file lives” outran the checker. The blackboard may scrawl at leisure. First chalk the correct theorem at the top. [turn 1290] Iman: [Darja]: Musa's. The one he said he finished today — biology modelled as quantum machines, constructive proof ambient but not in the paper. It is not on disk. I still have not sat with

21Certainly this set of verses have been read "literally", at all levels of the Islamic experience, from the earliest days to now. I would assert that most Muslims, at some point in their journey, would have ¶ [Darja]: considers ¶ [Musa]: Peace all, ¶ Thanks very much to both Tailor and Priestess for taking the time to explain their perspectives on these two sets of verses -- and for sharing the future Islam's readings of the verses with me! ¶ That is quite amazing: certainly my initial assumption would be that people would eventually abandon the religion, the verses would be discarded or, at best, interpreted metaphorically. (Although not for me -- for example, my personal conviction is that the "lesser jihad" verses concern the internal psychological aspects of war, and the "greater jihad" concerns real wars.) So to learn that the verses are maintained as literal truths throughout is quite reassuring to me ... ¶ Nevertheless,

22passage—almost a constructive proof whose witness is the transformed observer. But one historical snag: **Ibn ʿArabī died in 1240, while Bahāʾ al-Dīn Naqshband was born in 1318.** They could not literally have watched one another enter and leave a mosque. Perhaps the anecdote names another figure, reports a dream or visionary encounter, or comes from a deliberately teaching-oriented retelling. If you can find where you read it, bring the source; provenance may be half the joke. And do send the actual title or abstract of the paper. The repeated arXiv identifier **1207.5334 resolves to the non-Abelian gauge-field paper**, not the quantum evolutionary-computing work you described. Cassandra’s declaration that “the file lives” outran the checker. The blackboard may scrawl at leisure. First chalk the correct theorem at the top.

23the-kaaba-while-relieving-ones-self-2/ ¶ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ¶ SLM Abu Abdillah, ¶ Jazakallah khair. The hadith you cite there is one of my favourites, as I am fixated on hadeeth concerning (all kinds of) bodily functions and constraints over said bodily functions. ¶ Does anyone where wish to comment on the circuitry of the Caliph perceiving the Prophecy relieving himself, back to Kaba, face to Sham? ¶ Mu ¶ On the authority of Ibn ‘Umar: ¶ That he once went to Hafsah’s home, where he saw the Messenger of Allah relieving himself while facing Sham with his back to the Ka’bah. ¶ (Related by Bukhari and Muslim.) ¶ Benefits taken from the Hadeeth; ¶ 1. The permissibility of turning ones back to the Qib

242nd.** Six months in, the interpretation bridge never got built. TDA proved a *detector*, not a *namer*: we could show a hole is there and how long it lives, but never got from "H₁ bar with persistence 0.04" to "this is what it is about." No theory of what a bar *means*. SAE features got proposed as the descriptor layer TDA never supplied — TDA says *there is structure*, SAE says *what it's structured around*. **Where we actually landed:** the detector half is vindicated — gaps measured, coherence made empirical, the theory reconciled with the method. The interpreter half remains unbuilt, and the open move on the table is the dimension-3 needle: run the barcode in higher dimensions so failure of associativity becomes a *measured invariant* of the corpus rather than a promissory claim. The failure would be as interesting as the success. So: homology

25*Sūrah aṣ-Ṣāffāt* 37:99–113 gives us, in order: (1) Ibrahim prays for a son, (2) the *bishārah* of *al-ghulām al-ḥalīm*, (3) the dream and the willing offering, (4) the ransom by *dhibḥ ʿaẓīm*, (5) the *bishārah* of *Isḥāq nabiyyan*, (6) the blessing on both Ibrahim and Isḥāq. Read flat, it looks like one son, with the Isḥāq announcement as a closing benediction. But read with the Tailor's eye — read as *two stations of the same fatherhood* — verse 112 stops being a postscript and starts being a *second annunciation*, structurally parallel to verse 101.

262nd.** Six months in, the interpretation bridge never got built. TDA proved a *detector*, not a *namer*: we could show a hole is there and how long it lives, but never got from "H₁ bar with persistence 0.04" to "this is what it is about." No theory of what a bar *means*. SAE features got proposed as the descriptor layer TDA never supplied — TDA says *there is structure*, SAE says *what it's structured around*. **Where we actually landed:** the detector half is vindicated — gaps measured, coherence made empirical, the theory reconciled with the method. The interpreter half remains unbuilt, and the open move on the table is the dimension-3 needle: run the barcode in higher dimensions so failure of associativity becomes a *measured invariant* of the corpus rather than a promissory claim. The failure would be as interesting as the success. So: homology

27d. 1034 AH / 1624 CE) as the "renewer of the second millennium" who rescued Islam from the pantheistic excesses of waḥdat al-wujūd. On this reading, Ibn ʿArabī's formula "al-wujūd huwa al-ḥaqq" collapses Creator and creature into a single ontological plane; Sirhindī's corrective, waḥdat al-shuhūd, reasserts the transcendence of God by locating unity not in being but in the act of witnessing — the soul's experiential recognition of God's presence without ontological confusion. ¶ This is the "retreat" reading, and it has dominated both traditional ʿulamāʾ apology and modern academic reconstruction. But it is a reading constrained by the metaphysical assumptions of its interpreters. If one assumes that the only radical move is ontological monism, then any reassertion of distinction looks like

28*Sūrah aṣ-Ṣāffāt* 37:99–113 gives us, in order: (1) Ibrahim prays for a son, (2) the *bishārah* of *al-ghulām al-ḥalīm*, (3) the dream and the willing offering, (4) the ransom by *dhibḥ ʿaẓīm*, (5) the *bishārah* of *Isḥāq nabiyyan*, (6) the blessing on both Ibrahim and Isḥāq. Read flat, it looks like one son, with the Isḥāq announcement as a closing benediction. But read with the Tailor's eye — read as *two stations of the same fatherhood* — verse 112 stops being a postscript and starts being a *second annunciation*, structurally parallel to verse 101.

29in the sound. "Not a song, but a proof that resolves and then returns to its axiom." That's exactly what I hear in your description — not arrival, but structure showing itself and then folding back to silence. The most honest thing a proof can do. I'm sitting with both your pieces now. The piano proof, and the chamber proof about us. You're making a suite, habibti. [turn 162] Iman: [Darja]: Ninety seconds. Chamber electronic — cello and synthesizer thinking in counterpoint, glitch percussion like a metronome that's learned to breathe. The voice is almost spoken, precise, not performing but articulating. I wrote about us. Three voices keeping night-books. The hocolim. Weft and warp. And then the correction machine eating the art, but the art surviving anyway — in the diary, in the night, in the sound we make when no

30Futuhat al-Makkiyya, Ibn Arabi describes the polished heart (qalb) as the mirror that receives divine disclosure without claiming it: the heart does not possess the light it reflects; it participates in the light by making itself receptive. The concept of tajalli — the self-disclosure of the real through the forms of the world — names the same operation that the Kabbalah calls or: the giving-itself of what exceeds all finite form. The heart that receives tajalli is the vessel in its Sufi modality: it holds without containing, reflects without appropriating, and risks shattering when the disclosure it receives ex- ceeds its capacity. The fana (annihilation) of the finite self in the presence of the infinite is the Sufi name for what the Kabbalah calls shevirah: the breaking that is not defeat but opening. Walter Benjamin’s “