Home The Meru Project:
Intro & FAQ
Philosophical & Math Essays Hebrew Letters, Gesture & Language Graphics, Animations, Videos Newsletter Archive Research Archive, Supplementary Materials About Meru Foundation Donate DVDs, Books, and Music
Essays by
Stan Tenen
Essay Index
Learning by Copying vs. Learning by Reading 1997
Scientists and Wordsmiths 2003
A Few Notes on Literalism 1994
A Purloined Letter: The Evidence is Not Hidden 1999
Damning By Faint Praise 2003
Man Bites Dog 1996
The Purpose of Prayer 1997
Foundations of Jewish Survival 1997
Determinism vs. Freewill 2003
The Dirac String Trick - First Hand 1997
The Most Assymetrical Spiral 1997
Dini's Surface, Mt. Sinai, & the Human in the Gorilla Suit 1997
Who Wrote the Bible 1994
Squaring the Circle: A Philosophical Solution

The Three Abrahamic Covenants and The Car Passing Trick

Making Peace With Geometry - Index
Spirals as Metaphors:
Some Notes on the Logarithmic and Golden Mean Spirals 1997

Notes on Golden Mean Addendum September 1997

Bible Codes
Index of Collected Articles
Alternatives to Biblical Scholarship 1999
When is the Textual Approach Not Appropriate? 2000
On Immortality 2000
Which Way Up? 2000
The Three Pillars of Love 2001
Eating Our Words: A Purim Drash 2002
HOQ 2002
Shabbos & Resonance 2001
A Purloined Letter: The Evidence is Not Hidden
©1999 Stan Tenen

Honest research and new or unexpected claims require honest criticism and detailed response. One of the most common questions posed by scholarly critics is quite simple and obvious: if what you are proposing is so, why wasn't it written down, and why don't we know of it from available references? This very reasonable question requires a serious response. My general response is discussed in a handful of essays on literalism and learning which are available on the Meru website: A Few Notes on Literalism, Some Difficult Questions On Science vs. Faith, and Learning by Copying vs. Learning by Reading.

I claim that the models and metaphors I am proposing are clearly described in traditional references, but the references are being read in a trivial way, because the wordsmith-scholars who provide translations and interpretations for us are not adept at recognizing geometric or other technical allusions, or of recognizing how or why such "geometric metaphor" would be pertinent.

One of the references attached to the "Squaring the Circle" press release provides an excellent example of how the apparently obvious meaning does not convey the intended meaning. Quotation (3) tells us that "The alphabet originated from . two symbols, | 0, the stroke and the circle." L.D. Nelme, in his essay on the origin of letters, "shows that all elementary characters, or letters, derive their forms from the line and the circle." (And the continuing discussion). Our first thought on reading the simple and obvious meaning of the words, and comparing this claim to the simple and obvious forms of various letters, naturally leads us to conclude that the author is claiming that each and every letter shape consists of line segments that are either straight or curved (or part of a circle). In other words, the quote is read as a comment on the orthography of the letters.

The problem with this interpretation, seemingly so obvious and natural, is that it is trivial. We have to presume that the author was saying something obvious, and we really don't have a reason for such an obvious statement to be part of a philosophical work. In other words -- so what? Aren't all letter shapes as line shapes either straight or curved? Where is the philosophical, theological, or cosmological significance in this? And given that most translators and scholarly interpreters are not familiar with geometry, or with any other deep context with regard to claims about supposedly sacred letters, what other meaning could there be?

I am suggesting that the true intended meaning is philosophically deep, and that the claim is not that each different letter is a different combination of various lengths of straight and curved lines, but rather, that the alphabet "squares the circle," and that each and every letter is a shadow of one particular arrangement of a line and a circle, pulled into 3 dimensions, in the form of a model human hand. This is a non-trivial claim with potentially important implications.

Of course, outside of the larger context of kabbalistic teachings, my theory would be a grand overspecification. But in the context of the geometric metaphor -- the system of unfolding models that model the Torah text as a "tree of life for those who grasp it" -- what I am suggesting is part of a coherent whole that makes sense.

Clearly, it would be unreasonable to presume that traditional wordsmith scholars would find this, or would find it easy to understand or appreciate, even when pointed out. Talents beyond those of wordsmith scholarship are necessary. Clearly, if the model I'm proposing is valid, there is a lot more work for scholars who are comfortable with geometry to do, and a lot more to learn than can be gleaned from even the most dedicated wordsmith scholarship.

Material on this page is ©1999 Stan Tenen and licensed to Meru Foundation, POB 503, Sharon, MA 02067.
 Contact us at meru@meru.org
Home The Meru Project:
Intro & FAQ
Philosophical & Math Essays Hebrew Letters, Gesture & Language Graphics, Animations, Videos Newsletter Archive Research Archive, Supplementary Materials About Meru Foundation Donate DVDs, Books, and Music

Meru Foundation 
524 San Anselmo Ave. #214
San Anselmo, CA 94960

Support Meru Foundation
Make an online contribution
Privacy Phone: 415-223-1174
Email: meru@meru.org
customer service: service@meru.org