Volume 15 Number 10
Produced: Mon Aug 29 23:52:31 1994
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Meru Foundation Presentation at AOJS
[Stan Tenen]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stan Tenen <meru1@...>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 11:34:18 -0700
Subject: Meru Foundation Presentation at AOJS
First I would like to thank Sam Juni for posting his report on the Meru
presentation for AOJS last week. There are some details that need
correction and I would like to add some comments and responses that
might help to explain and frame what it is we think we are doing.
The following comments are listed in approximately the order in which
they appear in Sam Juni's message of 23 August 1994.
My name is Stan Tenen. I don't know where the name "Steve" came from.
We (Meru Foundation) are very open to competent and caring, Torah and
science conscious persons investigating our work as they see fit. We
are very much opposed to superficial and new-age treatments of our work
when they are not Torah and science based. (Meru's work has been taken
by a person who has been described to me as similar to David Koresh who
has been presenting his own very sick anti-Torah new-age versions of it.
This has cost us much support and credibility. Those who may have had
contact with this bogus material will readily understand why we
distinguish between competent and caring, Torah and science based work
by others - which we actively seek - and the nutsy and anti-Torah new-
age mishmash so fervently sold by the emotionally needy.)
However, "our ideology" is not at all parallel with the Discovery
program. First, we are a non-profit educational foundation and I am a
Jew and a scientist. Neither I nor Meru Foundation has any "ideology"
other than the personal commitment of many (not all) of our group to
Torah Judaism. (Which, in my opinion, is not an ideology.) Secondly,
unlike the Discovery program, Meru Foundation does not believe that it
is a good idea to bring persons to Judaism by means of seemingly
scientific demonstrations - even when they are scientifically justified.
I tend to agree with the criticism on the Discovery program as spelled
out by Prof. A. M. Hasofer, in the current issue (No.8) of B'Or HaTorah.
(I highly recommend B'Or HaTorah.) Further, while I believe that the
statistical work done by the Discovery program folks is first class and
reliable, I do NOT believe that statistics, NO MATTER HOW ROBUST, can
ever prove anything. There can ONLY be scientific proof when the
mechanism that generates what the statistics measure is known. It is
important to remember that the very same statistics used by the
Discovery program to demonstrate that "only HaShem could have done it"
are used by equally competent (and I would say, equally presumptuous)
academic scholars (who do not believe in Torah) to demonstrate that
human's MUST have done it. We should also note, AS PREDICTED BY TORAH
SCHOLARS, that non-Jews are now using similar techniques to find the
names of their spiritual leaders in Torah texts. Statistics without a
model are not science and they can easily be abused.
The Meru work is radically different from this. If anything, our models
may help to explain the presence of the equal interval letter skip
patterns that Discovery has found in a way that does honor to Torah and
to science. (We believe that it is possible that what we have found is
Torah true and scientifically meaningful.) Our work is NOT based on
statistics, but rather, (hopefully) on our understanding of the
fundamental processes that are responsible for the statistics and that
provide some understanding of what HaShem via Torah may be trying to
teach us.
One great failing of statistics, from a Torah perspective, is our
inability to Na'aseh before we can Nishma. (Note: "Na'aseh v'Nishma"
means, roughly, "We will do and we will understand," and is most often
said in reference to our original receiving of the Torah - we agreed to
act according to G-d's will, *without conditions*, assuming we would
understand later, in the doing, what there was for us to understand.)
Statistics does not enable anyone to do anything to confirm the meaning
of the statistics. How can we know (Nishma) when we have no access to
do (Na'aseh)? The Meru findings provide the Na'aseh, which in Torah-
competent hands, can lead to Torah-understanding (Nishma.)
It is true that several persons, including myself, have come to Torah
observance (at various levels and rates of approach) because of their
association with this material. But their reasons for doing so are very
different from each other, and different also from the reasons persons
are drawn to Torah via the Discovery statistics. No general rule should
be inferred from this. It is not my personal wish to use the Meru
findings for this purpose, even if they are found to be valid and Torah-
true by our sages. (I am not comfortable with proselytizing in any
situation. Spiritual matters are just too important and too personal
for me to want to influence another person's choices directly.) Neither
Meru Foundation nor I myself have a track record or credentials on which
to stand. We can only be evaluated by the integrity of what we do. Our
credibility depends on our attempting to adhere to the highest standards
in the Torah world and in the scientific world - simultaneously. This
means that we must be very conservative in our relationships. (We will
appear radical no matter how careful we are, so we must take extra pains
to avoid even the appearance of religious or scientific bias.)
So, I hope that Meru Foundation can work cooperatively with other
groups, such as the Discovery folks, but I do not think it would be
healthy or helpful for us to be too strongly identified with any other
group. We are not the same, and our goals and needs are not the same
either. We are the same in our allegiance to Torah and the Torah
community. How we express that allegiance is, however, not the same.
The alphabet is not exactly "first translated into ternary numeric
base,...." That is only an accounting scheme. We did not determine the
letter meanings until much later. However, the 3x3x3 matrix that the
ternary letter count produces does turn out to be central to the
assignment of universal meaning. The symmetries in the first verse of
B'Reshit become clear when you count the letters in ternary (Base-3).
The teaching that the Torah is organized so that the whole is in the
first letter, the first word, the first pasuk (verse), the first
paragraph, the first chapter, etc., is a Torah teaching. I did not make
it up. Our experiments demonstrate that this teaching is very likely
true. We have been able to demonstrate this explicitly for the first
letter, the first word and the first verse and we have been able to
demonstrate its plausibility (this is not a proof) for the first week of
creation. We believe that the Discovery program's equal interval letter
skip patterns MAY constitute a demonstration that the patterns we have
found continue throughout Torah, and we have detected markers at various
places throughout Torah where our predicted patterns seem to reappear.
It is very very very very frustrating to be on to this and to not have
the resources or knowledge base to proceed with the hard (and vital)
experiments that might confirm what we seem to have found. We are most
certainly open to COMPETENT help.
HOWEVER, even given these limitations and the fact that the vast
majority of this research is still ahead, we believe that we do now have
sufficient data and a sufficiently robust and coherent (Torah and
scientifically valid) model that, while it will certainly be refined and
corrected, will also stand the test of time and the expected criticism.
This is a work in progress; for it to come to a useful and Torah-true
conclusion requires careful, caring, and comprehensive criticism from
many disciplines. No one should take my word alone on this work (after
all I am NOT a disinterested nor a credentialed person). Our findings
to date justify the time and attention to get a full hearing and fair
review; they do not justify immediate acceptance.
The phrase in the second verse of Sefer Yetzirah (the "Book of
Creation", one of the best-known Kabbalistic works) is: "Asar Sephirot
Belimah." (Ten "sephirot" "out of nothing", in one common translation.)
We will be pleased to send a copy of a draft paper on this (along with
an introductory packet of information on the Meru Foundation to anyone
who asks and sends us their surface mail address.
The important form that we found that generates the Hebrew alphabet is
NOT a mobius strip. It is also NOT a golden mean spiral as our
plagiarist claims, and it is not any other previously known mathematical
function. Instead it encompasses all of these concepts. I call it
"Naked Recursion" and I claim it represents a natural constant of form
representing a fundamental relationship in mathematics (and science and
Torah.) "Naked", in a mathematical sense, means "unadorned" and
"without any other quality or limitation." This alludes to (and, in its
small way, attempts to model) the universal and unqualifiable quality of
HaShem. "Naked" also alludes to the use of the word "Orios" (literally,
"nakedness" or "incest") in the first line of Mishneh Ain Dorshin in
Hagigah, and to Rabbi Akiva's horrible death. (His skin was combed off
by the Romans.)
"Recursion" includes all forms of self-embeddedness. B'Reshit 1.11:
"Fruit tree yielding fruit whose seed is inside itself" (Also quoted in
the introduction to the Sefer Zohar, another well-known Kabbalistic
work.) The self-referential aspect of life and of human consciousness
is also "recursive" in the mathematical sense. Life is life because it
recurs - because it propagates.
I am sad that Sam did not find this convincing. The discovery of a
hand-shaped Tefillin strap that generates the letters of the alphabet is
our principal finding. Personally, I am more convinced that this is
true than I am about any other aspect of this work. The logic of using
a model hand held in our hand, to generate the letters of an alphabet
that we are taught connects chochma (wisdom) and binah (understanding),
is, to me at least, overwhelming. Our hand IS the G-d-given embodiment
of our ability to project our conscious will into the consensus world,
and to bring an image of the world into our personal mind-space.
Generation of the alphabet by this means naturally guarantees that the
letters will be equally robust and useful in consciousness and in
physics simultaneously. I strongly doubt that there is any better way
to do this, and I have perfect confidence that HaShem always make the
best choices. (However, it is ESSENTIAL to remember that even our own
hand can be used in an idolatrous way. Therefore, at the highest
levels, the image of our hand must also drop away, and only the feeling
underlying the hand gesture can remain to lead to the experience in
consciousness.)
Another example of a best choice was our discovery that we could count
the Hebrew letters in ternary. We did not know it at the time, but
there is a simple and elegant mathematical proof that ternary is the
single best (most elegant, universal and compact) number system for
conveying information. How could it be otherwise? If Torah counts in
ternary and if HaShem gave us Torah, could we believe that He used the
second best means of doing so? (Note: This conforms to BOTH my Torah
beliefs and my scientific standards - that is why it is acceptable in
the Meru research.)
The validity of the associations between form and meaning that we have
made should be judged after persons have had the opportunity to read our
written materials on this. The presentation at AOJS was too short to
fill in all the details and to demonstrate the coherence of our approach
as a whole. (We will send material on this to anyone who requests it.)
The musical tape was not played at AOJS but it is available in a shorter
version on the videotapes of many past lectures. Its purpose was to
provide some degree of assurance that the patterns we found explicitly
at the beginning of B'Reshit continued throughout the text. Listening
to the sequence of tones does provide this for most listeners. We also
learned some things about the structure of the text form listening to
the tone sequences. Those interested should contact us for further
information.
There is no TAURUS in our system. We are working with the basic self-
referential flow-form, as defined by the letter sequences at the
beginning of B'Reshit, which is called a TORUS. We have done no work on
the astronomical houses of which Taurus is one. Yes, as I like to point
out, in one common mathematical form a Torus can look like a bagel. In
nature, however, a torus is most like a "Fruit tree yielding fruit whose
seed is inside itself." In nature, a torus, modeling a hypersphere, is
in the form of an idealized apple-shaped fruit.
Again, in my opinion, our work is radically different from the Discovery
approach. I am sorry that Sam thought otherwise. Perhaps I should have
been more clear about this.
The principal reason why this work has not blossomed is that in the past
we have been rebuffed by nearly everyone we have approached (though, of
course, there are those who do appreciate its value). This is difficult
work. Most Jews are offended by our use of mathematics and our
discussion of other traditions (not to mention my long hair); most non-
Jews are completely opaque to the idea that Judaism might have something
to offer; most academics will not seriously consider any spiritual
tradition as more than superstition and myth; most scientists think we
are too mystical; and most wealthy individuals are not interested in
teachings that do not validate the legitimacy of their wealth. Or,
maybe I just have bad breath.
The fact is, this is work in progress. It is not finished work, so I
cannot make claims of what we will find when we are finished. (This
situation, as any researcher knows, makes it hard to get funding, even
for ordinary secular projects.)
We have tried (dozens of times now) to find a "computer whiz" who could
work on this. All who have tried have given up because they could not
figure out what to ask the computer to do. But think for a minute. If
these ideas *need* to be done on a computer, then they must be wrong.
Great as the accomplishments of our sages of the past, and barring nutsy
space-buddy theories of the origins of humankind and Torah (Sitchen, et.
al.), our sages did not have computers. If computers are necessary to
do this work, then the work is no more than a fantasy of mine, and is
not part of Torah or Torah-true at all. Computers can be useful for
modeling and they are certainly helpful to me in writing this response
(given my terrible spelling, etc.), but computers cannot and will not
ever know HaShem. (I believe that the belief in strong Artificial
Intelligence is an idolatry.) It is up to us, using our G-d-given
abilities and feelings, to do this work. As long as I resisted putting
on Tefillin, and as long as I insisted on a purely analytic (meaning
leave my feelings out of it) approach, all I could find was an abstract
model - no more than an idol. Only when I was finally able to let down
my ego-guard enough to take on (a small part of the yoke of) Torah
myself, could I FEEL the letters on my arm and on my hand and on my soul
and on my heart and on my mind. This is not a mechanical pursuit that
can be accomplished by technology. No machine can Na'aseh for us to
Nishma - we must do this for ourselves. The learning and the
validation of these ideas is in our doing (in a Torah-true
scientifically valid way.) Hot shot programmers really cannot help to
settle the difficult questions with their computers. (They can help to
simplify some of the mechanical tasks, however.)
Our work is challenging and it is disturbing to some. We are saying
that Torah includes a science of consciousness, and that this science
requires doing before knowing. How many persons are willing to jump in
before they are sure of something? It is hard enough to do this for the
Torah we are sure of.
Beyond all of the petty difficulties that stand in the way of any idea,
there is the matter of scale. Simple ideas that do not have deep
ramifications can be accepted quickly. They do not have much cultural
inertia. Important ideas are more culturally massive - they have more
inertia. It is necessary that we accept them slowly and with great
care, expressly because they may have a deep and long influence on our
lives. If the Meru work fits this second category, it must be slow in
acceptance. If I heard of the Meru work from someone else, I would be
very skeptical and I would certainly not believe it until I had done
much thinking and reading. I do not expect anything else from others.
With regard to endorsements and hechshers: While I met with Rabbi
Steinsaltz on two occasions, on the second occasion we only spoke of
personal matters and on the first occasion he merely referred me to
Rabbi Ginsburgh and provided general encouragement. Neither I nor Meru
Foundation have his endorsement. (If we could afford to travel to meet
with him again, we would immediately do so.)
This brings me to my second point. It is entirely inappropriate to base
the credibility of scientific research on endorsements. I understand
that in the Torah world the concept of "who holds by this" is a useful
one, but for me personally it is demeaning and professionally, as a
researcher, it is embarrassing. In this situation it may even be
inconsistent with Halacha. The Mishneh Ain Dorshin makes it very clear
that these ideas can only be discussed with persons who already know
them for themselves. If a person needs an endorsement in order to
evaluate this work then they are not qualified to do so. That may seem
unfair, but, in this situation, I believe that we should consider that
it may be justified.
However, our work has been evaluated by a wide range of persons,
including highly respected and knowledgeable Torah Jews, and we do
provide copies of what they have had to say for those who feel a need
for this reassurance. I am sympathetic when a Torah Jew asks me why he
or she should skip a Talmud class to study the Meru work. I would not
want vital Jewish learning to be displaced by clever mishegas (which is
very prevalent these days.) Persons who would like to know "who holds
by this" in the Torah world and/or in the academic/scientific world
should ask us and we will provide it. Please, however, do not try to
convince persons of the value of this work because someone else says it
is valuable. That can be embarrassing to all concerned. Certainly,
please do not post the names of respected persons openly on a public
forum (such as this.) The misinformation about Rabbi Steinsaltz could
be embarrassing to him and to us. (By the way, this misinformation is
based on a misunderstanding and on the passage of time. No one had any
intent to mislead here. But, these things happen. So, please be
careful when using another person's name.)
There are many issues not discussed here and there is much more to say.
If the Meru work is what it seems to be - important to our understanding
of Torah), we all have a responsibility. Check this out and decide for
yourself if this is valid, worthwhile and something that you can help to
nurture. If so, and if we are going to do work that meets the highest
Torah and scientific standards, than we need your help.
Our address and phone were posted correctly:
Stan Tenen,
MERU Foundation
POB 1738
San Anselmo, CA 94979
415 459 0487 (24-hour voice answering machine or live person)
415 456 3281 (FAX connected 7 AM - Noon Pacific Time, M-F ONLY)
Compuserve: 75015,364
Internet: <meru1@...>
Yours truly,
Stan Tenen,
Director of Research,
MERU Foundation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 15 Issue 10
