MOD: REPOST SEPT 12th, 2022
This is one of my oldest articles. VERY INTERESTING!
Wow this guy Ramsey McNabb is insane! This was interesting.
Usually, when someone is called a ‘person of principle’ it is meant as a compliment. For the most part, we take that phrase as applying to the ethical elite: those who lead highly moral lives, and never, or at least rarely, fail to follow their moral principles. A person of principle means someone who faithfully follows their principle or set of principles rather than abandoning them when convenient. If faced with a seemingly difficult decision in life, he or she will refer to his or her guiding set of principles and then merely deduce the correct action from it. If on rare occasions such principled people do not behave according to their principles, they would consider such actions to be moral mistakes on their part.
A Christian would certainly strive to be a person of principle. Such a person would live his or her life according to the moral guidelines set out in the Bible, especially for instance the Ten Commandments. Suppose Norbert, a Christian, really wants to get his son a wristwatch from the local department store, but cannot afford to pay for it. He is quite certain that he could steal the watch without being caught. To resolve his inner dispute, all he has to do is refer to his set of guiding principles, and he will recall that “Thou shalt not steal” applies. Norbert, being a man of principle, leaves the store disappointed, without the watch, but also without having violated his principle, and therefore without having acted immorally.
A committed utilitarian is also a person of principle. Suppose Amina is walking down the street, on her way to tutor a boy she knows so that he can pass his upcoming biology test. Suddenly she sees two children stumble into a crevasse left by last week’s earthquake. No one else is around, and it would probably take quite some time for her either to save the children herself, or call for help and wait for it to arrive. She is faced with a dilemma. She can go do her tutoring, and ignore the accident she just witnessed; or she can help the children and miss her tutoring commitment. Being a committed utilitarian, and therefore a person of principle, all she needs to do is consult her guiding principle: “Do whatever will bring about the greatest good for the greatest number.” That solves her problem, because saving the two trapped and wounded girls helps the people who are most in need, and it also helps the greater number of people.
A person who lives her life by Kant’s ethical theory would also be a person of principle. Suppose that Terra, a Kantian, finds a fifty-dollar bill on a football field, and she pockets it, because after looking carefully, she does not see anyone else around. Lucky for her, because she could sure use the money to buy her mom that ceramic pit bull terrier for Christmas. However, ten minutes later, Biff, the quarterback of the football team, comes over to the field and seems to be scouring the ground, as if he’s looking for something he lost. Terra quickly concludes that the money is probably his. Being a person of principle she consults Kant’s categorical imperative, which is her highest guiding principle: “Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to become a universal law.” She figures on that basis that anyone who finds money should be able to keep it if they don’t know to whom it belongs. But the case has changed, and she couldn’t possibly will that everyone should always keep the property of others just because they’ve briefly misplaced it. She returns the money to Biff, who promptly uses it to buy a ceramic football player for his father.
These are people of principle. They have beliefs and they are committed to living their lives according to those principles. They seem to be highly moral people who make excellent ethical choices. But watch where their principles take them…
Norbert the Christian is invited to go flying with his pilot friend Erica. They fly up north for about an hour, but then the engine gives out and Erica crash-lands the plane in a farmer’s field. Erica is trapped in the cockpit and begs for water. Norbert leaves her and runs to the nearby farmhouse. He knocks on the door but there is no answer. He notices a “NO TRESPASSING” sign. He also notices a hose attached to a tap on the side of the house. He could get water for Erica, but that would be stealing, since he has not been given permission by the owner. Norbert, being a person of principle, will not steal, no matter the case, so he fails to provide Erica with her much-needed water.
When our utilitarian, Amina, grows older, she becomes a doctor. A patient, Mr. Wiggles, comes to see her because he has sliced his finger badly. It’s only hanging on by a flap of skin. Mr. Wiggles would like Amina to repair his hand; but she has other ideas. She has four severely ill patients, who all need urgent transplants to survive their illnesses. The first needs a heart transplant; the second needs two new lungs; the third a bone marrow transplant; and the fourth needs a new liver. When she checks his medical files, Amina notices that Mr. Wiggles is a perfect match for all these patients. Amina sedates and slaughters him (against his will), and uses his organs to save the other patients. She manages to keep the entire procedure a secret from the public, and from everyone involved. She has brought about the greatest good for the greatest number of people. She has sacrificed one life, but saved four.
Our Kantian, Terra, sees a young girl run past frantically. The girl scurries underneath a nearby parked Honda Civic and hides. Moments later, a notorious escaped murderer comes onto the scene and inquires into the whereabouts of the girl. Terra thinks about Kant’s categorical imperative, and realizing that she could not universalize the maxim of her action if she were to lie, she decides to tell the truth, and thereafter the young girl is attacked and killed.
There is an exception to every rule, they say, and maybe they’re right, especially in ethics. Maybe being a person of principle isn’t such a good idea after all…
Dealing With The Exception
The exception is perhaps the greatest obstacle for any moral theory to deal with. You adopt a supposedly ideal moral system which should tell you what to do to act morally in any possible case: all you have to do is deduce the proper action from your principle or set of principles, then follow it. No problem. You’ll be doing the right thing, and acting without sin. But then you run into that odd, unexpected situation where following your rulebook doesn’t seem so neat and tidy. This new case is special, unique, and unanticipated by your ethical system. In fact, it just feels wrong to follow the rules here in this instance. Do you go with your rulebook, or your current intuition?
There are many who would step in and try to defend principled (rulebook style) ethics. They have three obvious defenses:
(1) Simply deny that apparent problems create exceptions.
(2) Hold the view that principles can be rewritten so that the apparent exceptions are no longer exceptions.
(3) Argue that each apparent exceptional case is really a case of conflicting principles, where two or more principles both apply, but one is overruled by another of greater priority.
The first defense holds that there are no exceptional cases. This means that when our current intuition clashes with the principle on which we base our moral system, we should follow our principle, no matter how wrong it might feel.
While this response avoids the problem of the exception, it pays a price that is far too high, often leading us to sacrifice the well-being of innocent people in service of a principle. This is highly counterintuitive and difficult to stomach. It also requires that we have one single overarching principle which defines our entire ethical system, since a plurality of principles would lead to situations where the principles conflict. But the notion that everything that matters morally can be summed up into one action-guiding principle is extremely questionable.
The second defense holds that when faced with an exceptional case, we should rewrite our principles so that the apparent exception is no longer an exception. So in Terra’s situation, where she must choose between lying and allowing an innocent person to be attacked, she might adjust her “do not lie” principle so that it becomes “do not lie unless you must do so to protect innocent people.” While this approach sounds perfectly reasonable, it completely undermines the authority of Terra’s moral principles. After all, if she can overrule and amend her principles whenever she sees fit, it is really Terra who is doing the moral work, and not her principles. Furthermore, as soon as Terra admits that her principles are open to adjustment, she has no assured principled method of determining in any new case whether it is time to follow her principle as it was, or whether it is time to rewrite it yet again.
The third approach would rank different principles in such a way that even though each principle matters, some matter more than others. So, for example, lying might always be a moral minus, but allowing an innocent person to be attacked could be a greater moral minus. Hence, lying, though itself wrong, is morally required in Terra’s case.
This might be the most plausible of the three defenses of principles, but there are also drawbacks to taking this route. To know which principle wins out in cases where principles conflict, you would either have to rank all the principles on a hierarchy, or else leave it up to an individual to decide priority on a case-by-case basis. Ranking all moral principles would be a troublesome task, to say the least; but leaving it to be decided on a case-by-case basis seems to minimize the moral authority of principles and the guidance that they can provide, leaving a lot to individual judgement. Further, if there is a strict hierarchy, there will be a top deciding principle, which leads to the same problems as with the first defense.
The above three defenses all deserve substantial consideration – certainly more than can be devoted in this article – but in the end I believe that there is a fourth option, and that the fourth one is the best. It’s a theory which is steadily gaining momentum and strength in philosophical circles, even though it flies in the face of much of the history of moral philosophy.
Moral philosophy for the most part has historically been an attempt to find the right principles by which we should live our lives. Whether it is a set of divinely inspired commandments, Mill’s principle of utility, Kant’s categorical imperative, or some other principle(s), determining the proper course of action in any given situation has been thought to require little more than deducing from the right set of universal principles, and moral philosophy has, for the most part, been a search for that perfect set of principles. But I believe that moral judgement is not a matter of applying some overarching universal moral principles. In my view, it is quite the opposite. I propose instead that the moral knowledge we have is founded on particular cases, and that the principles we have are mere generalizations from those cases. Thus, our fourth option when faced with exceptional moral cases is: Allow our particular moral judgements to simply override our principles, thereby invalidating those principles.
This approach lands me among those who propose a theory known as moral particularism. The moral particularist holds that the traditional approach to ethical theory is not the best. Rather than deducing the right action from some principle or set of principles, the particularist holds that moral judgement can get along just fine without any dependence on principles.
Imagine that you see a young girl crash her bicycle. She is knocked unconscious, and lying on a set of railway tracks only a dozen steps or so from you. In the distance, you see a train approaching, although it’s still thirty seconds from reaching the girl. What goes through your mind? Do you do a quick mental survey of your moral principles and attempt to apply them to the situation so that you can deduce what the right thing to do might be? Do you compare your two options – saving her and watching her die – and then apply the categorical imperative or the principle of utility to see which action your principle recommends? Or does it occur to you immediately that you should help her, without any application of principles? The moral particularist thinks that you do not need to apply a moral principle to conclude that you should help her. For the particularist, moral knowledge starts in clear-cut cases like this. If you know anything at all with regard to morality, you certainly know you ought to help the girl. You know you should help her even if you do not know any greater universal principles like the categorical imperative or the principle of utility.
W.H. Gass makes a similar point about clear cases: “When we try to explain why they are instances of good or bad, of right or wrong, we sound comic, as anyone does who gives elaborate reasons for the obvious, especially when these reasons are so shamefaced before reality, so miserably beside the point.” (W.H. Gass, ‘The Case of the Obliging Stranger’, The Philosophical Review, Vol. 66, No.2, 1957, p.196.) If the particularist is pressed to explain why you should help the young girl on the railway tracks, then rather than appealing to some overarching impersonal principle, the particularist will reply with particular reasons, for example: “The girl will die if you do nothing,” or “Because she’s about to get crushed,” or “Her family will be devastated,” or “Wouldn’t you want to be saved if you were in her shoes?”
So the particularist has a different interpretation of the relationship between particular cases and moral principles. Exceptional cases do not trouble particularists, since principles are mere generalizations from cases anyway. For the particularists, principles are, at best, helpful moral crutches. We can fall back on them when we are unable to properly examine the details of a specific case, or when our judgement is impaired or untrustworthy, or when we do not have enough information to fully understand what makes a particular case unique. But it should be made clear that for particularists, moral principles are tools that exist only to serve and help us, and they should be ignored or modified when they don’t. On the contrary, for universalists (believers in universal principles), our moral competence depends on how well we serve universal principles. Yet there is something strange about the notion that morality is ultimately a matter of applying impersonal moral principles to particular cases – morality becomes a matter of calculation rather than care. M.U. Walker makes a similar point: “Even as the theories tell us how to live they defeat or defy motives of attachment to particular people that give us reasons to live or allow us to live well.” (M.U. Walker, Moral Understandings: A Feminist Study in Ethics, Routledge, 1998, pp.30-31.)
If you are not yet convinced, imagine that someone asks you to justify the commonly-accepted principle that murder is wrong. How would you do it? If you are inclined to respond by giving examples of how terrible murders can be, then you are agreeing with the particularists, since you would be using particular cases to justify principles, and thereby treating principles as derivative. Yet justifying moral principles without appealing to specific cases seems almost impossible. As R.W. Krutzen writes, “One could not know ‘the deliberate, intentional killing of innocent persons is wrong’ if one did not know ‘the deliberate, intentional killing of this innocent person is wrong’.” (R.W. Krutzen, ‘In Defence of Common Moral Sense’ Dialogue 38, 1999, p.259.)
Other Arguments For Particularism
Jonathan Dancy, author of Ethics Without Principles, is most likely the leading proponent of moral particularism. He argues for what he calls reasons holism, which holds that a certain factor can constitute a reason in favour of doing an action in one situation, while constituting a reason against doing that same action in another situation. For example, the fact that “a lot of people will be there” is sometimes a good reason to avoid a place; but it is also sometimes a good reason to go to that place. If you want peace and quiet, it will be a reason against, but if you want to be involved in the festivities, it will be a reason for. Dancy claims that this sort of holism is generally accepted outside of the realm of morality, but is not at all popular in the realm of morality, where many philosophers assume that a moral factor must make the same sort of difference wherever it occurs. Dancy challenges that assumption, and argues that there is no clear distinction between moral reasons and other reasons. Reasons holism works just as well in morality, he thinks. For example, the fact that an action will cause inconvenience to someone is usually a reason not to do it. It would be wrong, for example, to trip up an elderly man who is taking his Sunday stroll to the neighbourhood church. However, if a child-molesting kidnapper is running down the street with a child in his arms, the tripping-up action’s status as inconvenience-causing is a reason in favour of doing it! According to Dancy, if reasons do not function the same way in all cases, then universal moral principles cannot be the foundation of moral thought.
Other particularists rely on Wittgenstein to strengthen their position. Following Wittgenstein’s concept of family resemblances, they argue that it is possible to acquire a concept through experience even if there is no ‘essence’ to the concept, or any clear definition of the concept. Wittgenstein argues, for example, that there is no essential definition available for the concept of games. Some games involve running, but not all games. Most games involve competition, but not all do, because many games are played individually. Also, there are some things that involve running and competition that are not games. So it is thought by Wittgenstein that games share similarities, as members of families do, but that there is no one key ingredient which defines the essence of games. Nevertheless, we regularly use the concept and language of ‘games’, and we do so with little difficulty. Some moral particularists want to say that moral concepts, like right and wrong, are similar to such concepts, in the sense that they have no single essence, but they can be used and understood anyway.
There is certainly much more to be said about moral particularism, both for it and against it, and this discussion has barely scratched the surface. I don’t expect that every reader will immediately agree that moral principles are unnecessary. That would be unrealistic, since moral philosophy itself is (still) often seen as the search for the right set of universal principles. I do, however, hope I have cast doubt on the universalist position, and have offered particularism as a theoretical competitor. We should at least not just assume that moral thought is a top-down affair, in which proper moral action is deduced from higher moral principles. We should at least acknowledge and consider the possibility that it might be the other way around – that moral thought is a bottom-up affair, in which the building blocks of moral knowledge are the clear particular moral cases, and that moral principles are inductive derivations from those cases. There are many important ongoing battles which characterize what philosophy is all about, for example empiricism vs. rationalism, freedom vs. determinism, and Cartesian dualism vs. eliminative materialism. I suggest that the moral particularism vs. moral universalism debate should take its rightful place as one of philosophy’s greatest battles.
MOD: EDIT – Repost from 2020! 🙂
“There must be something behind the energy” – Einstein
In school, my younger years, it was my understanding that Einstein was all science. And I thought he was an atheist. He was not. Doesn’t bother me either way, but perhaps was some group’s idea to ‘hide’ or ‘alter’ what he really said from the conscience of mainstream civilization post 1960. When finding this article on bethinking.org I thought I would share this incredible work with you.
What would Einstein say about God? I admire him and Edison very much, as Tesla. Who doesn’t?
Except, I wonder, what did he say about God specifically?
Dawkins explains that in dealing with Einstein’s religious views he relied on Max Jammer’s book Einstein and Religion.
What did Einstein really say?
The following quotations from Einstein are all in Jammer’s book:
“Behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force is my religion. To that extent, I am in point of fact, religious.”
“Every scientist becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men.”
“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man.”
“The divine reveals itself in the physical world.”
“My God created laws… His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable laws.”
“I want to know how God created this world. I want to know his thoughts.”
“What I am really interested in knowing is whether God could have created the world in a different way.”
“This firm belief in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.”
“My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit, …That superior reasoning power forms my idea of God.”
“There must be something behind the energy”
What gives the lie to Dawkins’ claim that Einstein was an atheist is Einstein’s repeated references to “a superior spirit”, ”a superior mind”, “a spirit vastly superior to men”, ”a veneration for this force” etc. etc. This is not atheism. It is clear Einstein believed that there is something beyond the natural, physical world – a supernatural creative intelligence. Further confirmation that Einstein believed in a transcendent God comes from his conversations with his friends. David Ben-Gurion, the former Prime Minister of Israel, records Einstein saying “There must be something behind the energy.”
According to Dawkins, “Einstein was repeatedly indignant at the suggestion he was a theist.” The evidence from Jammer’s book is the exact opposite. What Einstein actually said is:
“I am not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist.”
“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source.”
“There is harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, yet there are people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me to support such views.”
Very interesting. Check out the article for way more knowledge and more reasons to take a deep breath and explore all possibilities and think ‘outside the box’.
No picture could ever do this angel justice. An arch angel of the most high God. So much love and energy.
This Angel is sits on a Throne in the same vortex as the Most High God. Enoch walked with God. He records mankinds actions in the Book of Life. This Angel knows what it is to be Human. I promise you, the energy of this is right to my soul. I love you Metatron.
Here is vast knowledge that I have collected for years. I chant and call upon this Angel, to tell God I love him, and put it under Jesus. Remember God loved the world so much he sent his only begotten son.
I respect all religions, I love all ideas. If you don’t believe, that is Okay, God bless you and your path in this world. But I find true love in this.
THIS IS MY WEBSITE, AND I HONOR HIS MAJESTY LORD METATRON, A CHILD OF THE MOST HIGH GOD.
Metatron is a powerful angel who teaches people how to use their spiritual power for good while he records their choices in the universe’s great archive (known either as God’s book of life or the Akashic record).
Some believers say that Metatron is one of only two angels (the other is Archangel Sandalphon) who was first a human being. It is believed he was the prophet Enoch from the Torah and the Bible before ascending to heaven and becoming an angel. Metatron’s experience living on Earth as a person gives him a special ability to relate to people who want to connect with him. Here are some signs of Metatron’s presence:
Flashes of Brilliant Light
In their book, “Gnostic Healing: Revealing the Hidden Power of God,” authors Tau Malachi and Siobhan Houston suggest meditating and then envisioning Metatron appearing as a “crystalline light-body complete with the seven interior stars and the three channels, and the spiritual sun in the heart.” They continue: “Take up the chant Sar Ha-Olam, and envision a ray of light shooting up through the central channel from the spiritual sun in your heart and appearing as a holy star of white brilliance above your head. With the chant Torahkiel Yahweh, imagine that this star magically transforms into the image of Archangel Metatron.”
Author Doreen Virtue writes in her book , “Archangels 101,” that Metatron’s aura is “deep pink and dark green” and that Metatron often uses a brilliantly lit cube (known as “Metatron’s Cube” in sacred geometry because it’s reminiscent of Ezekiel’s chariot that the Torah and the Bible describe as made of angels and powered by flashes of light). Metatron uses that cube to heal people of unhealthy energies that they want to clear out of their lives. Virtue writes, “The cube spins clockwise and uses centrifugal force to push away unwanted energy residue. You can call upon Metatron and his healing cube to clear you.”
The Angel Metatron and his amazing ‘Cube’ Who was Metatron?
Mythically, Metatron was originally human, elevated to archangel by God for his services as scribe. Foremost communicator between humans and the divine, he is best known for his ‘cube’, shown above Angel Metatron, right.
The Flower of Life – A specific regular repeating pattern of circles rotating around a central point, shown – contains a vast Akashic system of information (kind of, short hand for the entire planet’s memory), including templates for the five Platonic Solids – Key Sacred Shapes which are the building blocks of creation. If you think this is far fetched, read on – in a moment you will see the shapes appear as if by magic.
A Crop Circle
Sacred Geometry, by the way, is where the ‘mystery of all creation’ meets science, and any sceptics out there might enjoy further study, which will transport you from the Atomic Tables via mathematics to the myth of Atlantis and crop circles in the wink of an eye (which, as you will discover, embodies a very special shape known as a vesica piscis, and more, much more…)
Metatron is linked with Thoth –(or possibly, Metatron IS Thoth – ancient figure who pops up many times through esoteric history, said to have reincarnated many times from pre-history, Atlantis, Ancient Egypt, even to today, possibly AKA Drunvalo Melchizedek.
‘Metator’ is latin for a guide or measurer, which is certainly akin to this cube. ‘Metatron’ also refers to the ‘Keter’ or crown in the Kabbalah ‘Tree’ – an ancient picture of the Chakra System. The Kabbalah Tree is based on the ‘Flower of Life’ – no doubt, as Madonna could tell you! See Blue Outline above – how The Kabbalah Tree is derived from The Flower of Life.
Anyway, I shall be your guide through this vast landscape of ‘weird shape fractal zodiac geomancy’ – whatever that is!
According to this theological material, Enoch (Metatron) is responsible for transmitting the secrets of the Written Torah as well as the Oral Tradition. “And Metatron brought them out from his house of treasuries and committed them to Moses, and Moses to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets and the prophets to the men of Great Synagogue…”
In late Merkabah, Metatron (Enoch) is the guide and the revealer of secrets to all who are initiated into the account of chariots. Hekhaloth literature (3 Enoch, Shi’ur Qomah) describes these functions of Metatron. He guides and reveals secrets to R. Ishmael and to R . Akiba. Sometimes the Merkabah narrative extends his role to the titles of the Prince of Wisdom and the Prince of Understanding.
It is apparent that in 2 Enoch one may see some kind of preparation of Enoch for his role as Metatron, “the Knower of Secrets.” The preparation entails several stages. First, the archangel Vereveil inducts Enoch into these secrets.
He instructs Enoch in “all the deeds of the Lord, the earth and the sea, and all the elements and the courses…and the Hebrew language, every kind of language of the new song of the armed troops and everything that it is appropriate to learn” (23.1-2). Second, the Lord himself continues to instruct him in the secrets, which he had not even explained to the Angels (24.3). Finally, the Lord promised Enoch the role of “Knower of Secrets.”
The important detail here is that the promise of the role is closely connected with other titles of Metatron such as “The Prince of Presence,” “The Heavenly Scribe,” and “The Witness of the Judgment.” In the text the Lord promised:
…and you will be in front of my face from now and forever. And you
will be seeing my secrets and you will be scribe for my servants
since you will be writing down everything that has happened on earth
and that exists on earth and in the heavens, and you will be for me a witness of the judgment of the great age (36.3).
This substantial passage graphically depicts the interrelation of the future roles of Enoch (Metatron) in the narrative of 2 Enoch. In spite of the fact that the text does not elaborate the real embodiments of these roles and titles, but only promises and initiations in these roles, it leaves the impression that 2 Enoch is part of larger tradition and that its author has prior knowledge of the future development of these titles and the deeds behind them.
It is intriguing that the narrative of 2 Enoch does not show the promised powerful deeds of Enoch-Metatron in different offices of the heavenly realm, for example, those of the Knower, The Scribe, The Witness and The Prince of Presence even in early “primitive” Merkabah or apocalyptic form. It looks as if the author of the text deliberately avoids these details. He knows that it is not time for revealing these faces. Enoch must return to the earth, and only after that trip he will fully assume his heavenly offices. In 67.2, which serves as the conclusion to Enoch’s story, there is a statement about the theme: “and the Lord received him and made him stand in front of his face for eternity.”
In this regard, the narratives of 2 Enoch and 3 Enoch seem to be written from different temporal perspectives. The setting of Enoch’s story in 2 Enoch is the antediluvian period. Melchizedek”s narrative of the book distinctively stresses this point. This explains why in 2 Enoch “there is no place for Abraham, Moses, and the rest.”
Salutations in the Light of the Great Seth (Shin-Tau)!
Torahkiel literally means “Torah of God” or the “Law of God,” and Yahweh literally means “That Which Was, Is and forever Shall Be,” these two sayings placed together become a fascinating contemplation; Torahkiel can also be translated as the “Word of God” and Yahweh can be translated as the “Eternal Continuum” or “Light Continuum,” which may take the contemplation even deeper.
These two names together as one holy name of Archangel Metatron indicate Metatron as the Angel of the Supernal Shekinah, the interior Divine Presence, who spoke to the prophet Moses in the giving of the Ten Commandments; the aspect appearing to Moses, of course, was Archangel Sandalfon, the Angel of the Shekinah manifest. Thus, this is the Great Maggid at the burning bush speaking the Essential Name of the Most High (Eheieh Asher Eheieh) and the Great Maggid speaking the Holy Law that would open the way for the coming of the Messiah.
In this we may understand a very esoteric allusion when the masters of the tradition teach that rather than Moses and Elijah appearing in the Transfiguration, it was Enoch and Elijah, for as the Great Maggid of the Supernal Shekinah it was Metatron that transmitted the Holy Law to Moses, and likewise, Enoch ascended in divine rapture just as Elijah ascended – according to the Book of Kings, Elijah ascended by a whirlwind.
As this holy name proposes, Metatron is the pure emanation of the Light Continuum, Yahweh, the essence of which is Eheieh, the Divine I Shall Be.
Now according to the Kabbalah, the tradition, creation is founded upon the Holy Torah – with Ten Holy Utterances creation comes into being, and with Ten Holy Commandments the Divine Intention (Ratzon) of creation comes into being, the generation of the Human One of Light, the enlightened human being.
Ten Utterances, Ten Commandments, these are the powers of the Ten Holy Sefirot – the Torah finds its fulfillment in the Holy Gospel in which the Ten Commandments are unified as One Holy Commandment, “Love one another as I have loved you,” the Holy Commandment of Melekh Messiah, the Human One of Light, Metatron being the Great Maggid of the Messiah, the One Anointed with Supernal Light.
The Holy Name of the Messiah is Yeshua (Yoshua), which contains the Great Name of Yahweh with the addition of the Holy Letter Shin, the letter of the Holy Shekinah, the Divine Presence; of the Messiah it is said that he is as the Ladder of Lights that Jacob saw in his dream at Bet El, upon which angels of God ascended and descended, the Gate of the Great Ascension.
If in the Jewish Kabbalah the holy name of Archangel Metatron at the giving of the Holy Torah is Torahkiel Yahweh (or Yod-He-Vau-He), then in the Christian Kabbalah with the coming of the Messiah and proclamation of the Holy Gospel this holy name becomes Torahkiel Yoshua (or Yod-He-Shin-Vau-He), the Word of God, the Light Continuum, delivers!
This was known to Enoch and Elijah, as to King Melchizedek, and was embodied and transmitted in Adonai Yeshua Messiah; the world receives this through the Messiah, specifically the Risen Messiah, Hayyah Yeshua (the Living Yeshua).
Now, when we intone this Holy Name, whether as Torahkiel Yod-He-Vau-He or as Torahkiel Yahweh it is the same Light-presence and Light-power of the Great Maggid, but according to how it is intoned there are different manifestations of the matrix of this Divine Power; as you have noted, Yod-He-Vau-He is linear, like a ladder stretching from heaven to earth, and Yahweh (pronounced: IAOWAY) is like a swirling, spiral, circular movement. Each has its use on a theurgic level, and each has its own kavvanot when intoned.
The kavvanah at the beginning of both is the same – it is kavvanah upon the Holy Law or Torah, the union of the soul with the Holy Law as with the greater prophets, the greater navim (seers); this empowers to the intoning of the Great Name, for in union with the Holy Law one does not intone it, but rather the Holy Shekinah, through which the Law and the Name are given, intones it – it is the only way it is rightly spoken or intoned.
The full power and essence of the Holy Law, of course, is the Messiah, the pure emanation of the First Commandment – the Gospel of the Messiah to the Holy Law being as Eheieh to Yahweh; thus the secret kavvanah when intoning Torahkiel is Melekh Messiah, specifically Hayyah Yeshua.
When Yod-He-Vau-He is intoned the kavvanot are the four Olamot: Yod, the Ten Names; He, the Archangels; Vau, the Orders of Angels; He final, the Celestial Spheres or Sphere of Mazlot (fortune or destiny) – this is the manifestation of Yahweh, the Light Continuum as the Great Luminous Assembly, the Sphere of Mazlot implying the Community of Israel, the assembly of tzaddikim and navim of the Divine Order.
When Yahweh (IAOWAY) is intoned the kavvanah is the union of the Supernal Universe and Matrix of Creation, the Pleroma of Light and Entirety – or else, the union of the two Great Ofanim, Metatron and Sandalfon, Hua.
The truth is the same, either way, but the movement of the Light-power in our Body of Light and the Sacred Circle is different, as you have noted in your own experience.
If we are to speak of kavvanot, they are the concentration of the mind and heart – all thought and desire on a single “object” of focus, and in such focused awareness thought and desire cease, and there is pure conscious intention, the full spiritual power of our soul’s will and love; whatever is willed in this way, in submission to the Ratzon of El Elyon, the Supreme, will come to pass as it is intended, as it is willed, every time.
This invocation of Metatron is rather like a lightening bolt version of the Great Convocation, whether by way of the linear or circular Sefirot.
Now Yod-He-Vau-He is the manifestation of four Gates of Light in the four directions of the Sacred Circle, so that these Holy Letters may be envisioned in the Four Directions; Yahweh is the manifestation of two Gates of Light, above and below, in the height and in the depth, so that “Yah” may be envisioned above and “Weh” below – Torahkiel is the Word of God by which this will come to pass, the Holy Law upon which heaven and earth are founded.
*There is another kavvanah with Yod-He-Vau-He which is all of the Holy Letter spelt out in full – those who understand might contemplate this.
As we have alluded to above, in place of Yod-He-Vau-He we may also intone Yod-He-Shin-Vau-He, also Yod-He-Vau-Shin-He; with the former is the kavvanah of the Messiah in the ascension and the outpouring of Supernal Fire, and with the latter it is the Second Coming, the Messiah in the Apocalypse – the initial kavvanah with Torahkiel remaining the same, kavvanah upon the Holy Torah. These two give insight into the emergence of the Holy Gospel from the Torah, the Holy Gospel hidden within the Torah.
Now there are also four different ways to intone Yod-He-Vau-He corresponding with Hokmah, Binah, Tiferet and Malkut – with a, i, o and u, respectively; the kavvanot of these is the Tetragrammaton manifest as the corresponding Sefirah, four principle grades of the Light Transmission; if and when Shin is added, the inmost essential grade of Light Transmission becomes the kavvanah, or else, the Light Transmission of Messiah manifest in these four grades.
*As you might imagine, various permutations of the Great Name may be used to bring about different theurgic intentions.
All of this is knowledge of the Word of God manifest in the Light Continuum (Yahweh), corresponding to Divine Wisdom, Hokmah – Reshit, the point beyond which there is nothing knowable.
All of this contains knowledge of the Path of the Great Ascension; thus, when understood, the invocation of Metatron by this holy name can lead to prophetic consciousness when the Holy Spirit enters to illuminate and elevate the soul.
May all souls be drawn up in the Path of the Great Ascension – may all souls be as holy angels ascending and descending in the Mystical Body of the Risen Savior, the Supernal Merkavah; amen.
Check out my other domain www.metatron.tw
Instead of remembering that mistake, that failure, what you didn’t do right…
You don’t know how much something means to you, how precious it is, until it is gone.
That one error, I just, can I forgive myself?
God will forgive you, can you forgive yourself ?
God accepts you, now can you accept yourself?
I don’t know Joel – you don’t know my past. He says, God was not surprised when you made that mess, he created you, you didn’t surprise him.
Joel has inspired me. I am not with any religious group, but respect all of them. Would be great to visit Texas and see Joel.
Personally I have gone to impossible lengths to change my destiny. All things are possible with God.
Love, Peace, Joy, Respect, Compassion, Grace, and Mercy.
I am the webmaster of thenumber28.
To the person reading this, may your life be filled with joy forever.
We are all going through a rough and difficult time. So, Stay strong.
Hello my friends = )
Right now, there are people all over the world who are just like you.
They’re either lonely, they’re missing someone, they’re depressed, they’re hurt, they’re scared from the past, they’re having personal issues.
They wish, they dream, they hope. And right now, they are sitting here reading these words, and I’m writing this for you so you don’t feel alone anymore.
Always remember, don’t be depressed about the past, don’t worry about the future, and just focus on today. If today’s not so great don’t worry! Tomorrow’s a new chance. If you are reading this, be sure to share this to make others feel better.
I have noticed, that, the world is changing. It really is. I have been doing this website for almost 6 years.
And I want to tell you, that I very much appreciate you reading this.
All my content is a collection of my thoughts, my wisdom, my dreams. I found this about Garlic –
I just finished eating some and burned my mouth off. In fact it was so hot, I had to spit some of the last bits of it out because it was on fire.
This will cleanse your body and soul. I linked the source, thank you Diane.
Sadly, it may not be powerful enough to keep the latter away, unless you breathe on them after eating it, but it will certainly counteract any damage they cause, both physically and energetically.
Garlic is not only delicious it is also amazing! Especially when it comes to healing the body. It is a powerful antibiotic, anti-fungal and anti-inflammatory, it helps remove heavy metals and contains potent anti-oxidants that help build a healthy immune system.
For the Empath, however, it is what it can do for you energy body that you may find of interest:
Most already know of garlic’s many health benefits, but you may not have heard about its ability to clear the aura.
The aura (pranic sheath or energy field) both surrounds and penetrates the body. It therefore affects both the physical and energetic bodies.
Within the aura we can hold years’ worth of unreleased painful emotions, negative thought-forms, past life memories and toxins, etc. We can also carry the energy of those we come into contact with, either from another’s thought forms or just plain old negativity.
So not only do we carry our stuff, we can carry the energy of others. Which obviously affects how we show up in the world.
If you do not regularly clear the aura, it can lead to physical and spiritual problems, as well as a leaky aura!
This is where garlic helps…
Garlic speeds things up.
- It speeds up your vibration, both physically and energetically.
- It speeds up the metabolism helping shed excess weight.
- It speeds up the digestive system helping remove food and toxins.
And garlic speeds up the human energy field, meaning the emotional energy picked up off others bounces back off.
Garlic also helps clear your aura and, in doing so, helps clear or reset blocked or sluggish chakras…
Another way garlic helps the Empath is in its anti-inflammatory properties.
Stress caused by pained emotions, your own and those picked up from other people, creates inflammation within the body.
Inflammation causes disease and discomfort. Empaths, and anyone who is highly sensitive, gets stressed easily and therefor are prone to inflammation. By including garlic in your diet it may help prevent the damage caused by emotional stress.
To get the full benefits of garlic you need to include it in your diet regularly, but it is best to build up gradually. Too much garlic too soon can cause stomach upsets. You may find you have to play around with garlic dosage, to find what suits you.
Some are sensitive to garlic. If this is the case you may find you are ok with capsules or garlic oil. I am sensitive to garlic when its eaten raw. I always have to cook it first.
Until next time…
Glory to the Kingdom in Heaven , Forever
You are lucky to be here.