And so the gift (mincha) went on ahead, while [Jacob] remained in the camp (machaneh) that night. (Genesis 32:22)
And [Esau] asked, “What do you mean by all this company [machane] which I have met?” [Jacob] answered, “To gain my lord’s favor (chen).” (33:8)
According to rabbinic interpretation, the meeting between Jacob and Esau is a world-historical encounter, a compressed sign of all that is to come in the conflict between Jerusalem and Rome.
Jacob hides in his machane, be it real or affected. Afraid of his brother, he seeks to flex a sense of strength in his numerical mass, in his posse. He sends gifts ahead to Esav to create a sense of distance, a sense of importance.
Both the camp and the gift allow Jacob to mediate his relationship. His gifts are a power move, a gambit of realpolitik. His camp helps him feel safe. Of course, we know, Jacob is insecure. Jacob’s craftiness is layered.
There are two ways that we can go astray in our self-evaluations and in our presentations. We can rely upon our gifts and talents (minchateinu), our offerings, for our sense of self-esteem. This is Cain’s error. He conflates his self worth with his creative capacity.
On the other side, we can rely on our armory, our power, to shield us from the bothers of inner life. If we just have enough of a camp to surround ourselves with, we don’t need to confront our existential tumult.
Grace—chen—the small word concealed in the bluster of talent and the stability of fortification, is the way out. It is also a word that means beauty. And it is a word that recurs obliquely in the upcoming holiday of Channukah.
To end the bitter strife of brothers, to pacify the conflict between the deceiver and the hunter, requires a shift from a focus on power to an appreciation of beauty.
War is an endless when the goal is domination. Peace dwells on those who are guided by beauty, who know their own beauty, and can find beauty in those around them.
If politics is war by other means (von Clausewitz), aesthetics is peace by other means.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I never made the connection between autonomy and mon-ocularity, but it’s a fascinating and vivid one. Heteronomy as binocularity. Kafka knew this well.
Time for a @threadapalooza on Michel Foucault (1926-1984), historian of madness, archaeologist of the marginal, skeptic, existentialist, culture war touchstone, enfant terrible turned god of hipsters, and one of the most original and brilliant minds of the 20th century.
Whether you love or hate Foucault, whether you agree or disagree with him, his thought is THE thought of our time. You cannot study the humanities at an Ivy League school without reading him. 2
And even if you don't read him directly, his claims have trickled down into the reigning ideology of both elites and counter-elites. Foucault is intellectual napalm. 3
Derrida and Foucault were equal opportunity skeptics. Their form of Critical Theory was never intended to be a movement or a cudgel. They valorized the periphery but were mostly not in the business of changing policy or grabbing power, beyond their own opportunism.
Cultural conservatives are wrong to blame them for “woke-ism” and the activist class are wrong to see them as ancestors.
Both were boogie dudes who found opportunity in vice signaling their hostility to being bourgeoisie. Their ideas have use, but are not as dangerous as people think.
If you think translation choice largely doesn't matter you're likely a pragmatist. The meaning of words is how we use them. If you think it does, you're probably a romantic. Everything turns on the perfect word.
It's ironic that the foundation of Christian theology is "the Word made flesh," and yet in contrast to both Judaism and Islam that Word can be translated without any real loss in meaning. You don't need to know Greek or Latin to be a good Christian. Any Bible will do.
Christianity is pragmatic. Which is also good for missionizing. Judaism and Islam are romantic. Yes, the Torah can be learnt in translation, but one only recites a blessing on Torah read in Hebrew. The Quran is only holy in the original.
Isaac is the first Biblical character whose prayer is answered. He's also the first Biblical character who is said to love. In contrast to Abraham and Jacob, Isaac has only one wife. I connected these dots for my weekly #Torah commentary.
Abraham’s prayer on behalf of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah is arguably a morally superb one, as it is maximally disinterested, concerned with principled justice. But is it born out of love?
Abraham read Rawls, as it were, and simply quoted God “the difference principle.” “Imagine, God, that you were standing behind a veil of ignorance, and that you yourself might end up in Sodom…would you want it to be destroyed if there were 50 good people there?”
When Paul says that through faith there will be “neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female” (Galatians 3:8), he introduces the modern notion of the liberal individual subject, stripped of association, uprooted from tribe.
Ironically, those who today assert Christianity as an axis of resistance against liberalism fail to appreciate the ways in which Christianity itself made liberalism possible.