Whoops. A little correction made to my post. The prefix letter in the Hebrew word “Ehyeh” means "I (future tense), not “he”. That would be a prefix letter yud.
The only thing I can say is that perhaps you don’t have to suffer regular 110mph winds and sometimes a lot higher!
Framework level, letter level, sentence level, meaning level. The same perception sense is conveyed with ‘neutrality’ to Yirat HaOnesh (fear of punishment) to Yirat Shamayim (fear of heaven) to Yirat HaRomemut (Awe), these stages of journey through the ‘storymind’ of G_d are based on the transformation of ‘fear’ which is the only thing not created by the author (ie G_d) to a state of awe when the ‘spiritual’ story is revealed. The sense of reading conveys similar levels under the PARDES ‘model’.
"…“Pardes” refers to (types of) approaches to biblical exegesis in rabbinic Judaism or to interpretation of text in Torah study. The term, sometimes also spelled PaRDeS, is an acronym formed from the same initials of the following four approaches:
Peshat (פְּשָׁט) — “surface” (“straight”) or the literal (direct) meaning.[1]
Remez (רֶמֶז) — “hints” or the deep (allegoric: hidden or symbolic) meaning beyond just the literal sense.
Derash (דְּרַשׁ) — from Hebrew darash: “inquire” (“seek”) — the comparative (midrashic) meaning, as given through similar occurrences. [this is the 'story telling aspect]
Sod (סוֹד) (pronounced with a long O as in ‘soda’) — “secret” (“mystery”) or the esoteric/mystical meaning, as given through inspiration or revelation…" from the Wiki.
Judaism is not a ‘religion’ but a ‘relational’ praxis constrained by a legal structure. This legal structure seeks to correct inbalance in a quarternary ‘tensional’ sense (the Creator has a four letter name) but the repetition of two elements of that name point to singularity in the ‘motivational’ ‘tension’ of the conjunction of the opposites (or pairs) which whirl around ‘singularity’ - as Hashem (the name) is one. Its as if the Dramatica model were expanded to become the set of all possible infinities to provide a model of ‘creational tension’ which eminates our existence in plurality , indeed the movement of the Yud He Vav He to Elohim (Judge) as ‘nature’ (the Hebrew word for Elohim and Nature are equivalent numerically) - teaches this decent into the ‘complexity’ away from the ‘quad’ form of the creator, which itself is removed from the conjunction of opposites “pairs” such as good evil etc. as illusions masking the reality of ‘energetic’ tension the very source of existence.
The nature of the boundary condition - the Tzimtzum is also a fascinating area of research, relating to the interface between quads in the Dramatica model - but as with all this I am whirling a bit - early days.
1 Like
How did that happen out there in the Shetland Islands! It took us years to get fibreoptic in the heart of London, a stone’s throw away from Google. In fact, we were just fitted with it last month after much begging and pleading.
Up til then, no one would supply our residential building and have the paperwork to prove it 
You guys clearly have things sorted up there.
You rarely find what you expect when you go against your will to get away 
You hit on a significant portion of Dramatica and Kabbalah by mentioning Tzimtzum. You’re probably already aware of the stages of energy flow within the Tree of Life. I see it also as like the creative story process.
I’d still have to think about the first sefirah, Keh-tehr (“Crown”), but the next one, Khokhmah, acts like a father by spewing a flood of inspiration. Unfiltered. I link this with a singularity. The next sefirah, Bee-nah (“Understanding”), receives and incubates this energy into form and shape. All three of these sefirot are the top triumvirate of the Tree of Life, dealing with the mind.
As a writer, this directly connects with receiving a burst of inspiration and having to use Dramatica’s Storyforming stage to break apart this singularity into component parts through labels. Recall those “multi-appreciation moments” when several variables in a storyform are expressed simultaneously by one moment. Perhaps this is a subconscious remnant of when they were a singularity.
So Storyforming could be seen as the sefirah stage of Binah (bee-nah). When does the Story Encoding, the second stage of Dramatica’s Storytelling, occur? I suppose Encoding coud be a second mini-stage of Binah.
In the Tree of Life, this creative energy then descends toward more physical form to the body of six more sefirot. Thus, the association between the sixth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, vav, and the six sefirot.
Finally, the reproductive organ-like sefirah of Yesod (yeh-sohd) (“foundation”) emanates this energy in more materialistic form into the stem of the Tree of Life. This is the sefirah Malkhut (“kingdom”) is the tangible world receiving this energy. So, it’s paired with the top sefirah, Keter, the most untangible. Therefore, malkhut matches the perhaps much overlooked Dramatica stage of Story Reception. Does the story in received form by audiences match the inspiration given to the writer at the Chochmah (khokhmah) sefirah stage? Regardless of whether it does or not, this story takes on its own identity in the minds of the audience.
In some sense, a writer is a navi. This Hebrew term is translated as “prophet” in English, such as the name of the book “Prophets”, but they shouldn’t be linked with telling the future. According to the Hebrew Bible, these nevi’im would go into a trance and speak divine statements.
1 Like