Let's "plain speak" the material turn. The "material turn" in leftist theory means a change in the revolution toward the concrete, physical, and economic dimensions of social change. This means focusing on production, property, institutions, resources, and inequalities as a means to achieve emancipation and repair societal divisions. This turn is part of an oscillatory pattern rooted in esoteric traditions, where mind (ideal: insight, recognition, philosophy), body (material: tangible structures, nature, tools), and spirit (cultural: communal will, mores, rituals, shared identity) interpenetrate and cycle through history. This framework originates in Western Esotericist ideas that were transmitted through to Hegel (but almost certainly to Descartes and Rousseau), then adapted by Hess and Marx into leftist praxis. All of this structures leftist movements because, well, they slavishly follow their own models. So, it views reality as a unified fabric of correspondences, with history as a drama of withdrawal, rupture, elect-led collective repair, return to wholeness. Here, this is manifest by Descartes's Cogito (Tzimtzum), Rousseau’s spiritual-cultural turn, and naming of property as the source of rupture/shattering, Hegel's passive mapping of this pattern, then to the Hess-Feuerbach-Marx material turn, and the application of human agency, or tikkun, on a return to wholeness.
Let's begin with the esoteric foundation. Hermeticism views reality as one internally linked whole, where the human acts as a microcosm mirroring the macrocosm, so knowledge and action here can touch what lies above. This is why as above, so below extends beyond stars and metals to encompass mind, body, and spirit working as one. Hegel takes this Hermetic vision of a circle connecting God and the world to heart, building his system around it. In Hermetic thought, God's self-knowledge reaches completion through human recognition, a core idea Glenn Magee identifies as the main link between Hermeticism and Hegel. Human understanding of God becomes God's understanding of himself, which explains why the world must be embraced rather than shunned.
Kabbalah, particularly the Lurianic stream carried into German thought by early modern Christians, adds the storyline that clarifies why this circle encounters fracture. It follows a sequence of contraction, shattering, and repair. In tzimtzum, the infinite pulls back to create room for finite life. In the breaking of the vessels, light scatters and sparks fall into husks. In tikkun, humans lift and reorder those sparks so the finite can once again reflect the infinite. The Tree of Life maps these connections across levels, with sefirot like Kether, the crown of ideal unity, flowing down through Tiferet, the balance of beauty, to Malkuth, the material kingdom, linked by paths that enable as above, so below transformations. Hegel was familiar with Kabbalah through scholarly works like Brucker's history and Knorr von Rosenroth's Kabbala denudata, and he references Lurianic themes such as Adam Kadmon and the sefirot in his lectures. The central Lurianic insight is interrelation, where lower and higher realms influence each other, and human effort in history plays a role in restoration.
With this framework in mind, the modern turns come into focus. Picture mind as the domain of insight and recognition, body as the material order of nature, tools, property, and institutions, and spirit as the realm of will, shared customs, cultus, and the collective vessel that shapes a people. Hermeticism permits lawful movement among these levels. Alchemy provides the mechanics: fixed and volatile elements held together by a mercurial mediator, and a triad of salt, sulphur, and mercury that Hegel interpreted as a genuine ontology (the philosophical study of existence itself). You see this withdrawal, rupture, elect-led collective repair structure right in the lineage of leftist thought.
Descartes sets the stage with a contraction of the field that mirrors a philosophical tzimtzum. The thinking subject pulls away from the extended world to find certainty, opening a cleared space where mind and body stand sharply apart. This is more an analogy than a direct historical tie, but it traces the pattern. A world once seen as a single fabric splits for the sake of method and control, leaving spirit without a clear civic home. We can't prove Descartes plagiarized tzimtzum, but the resemblance is too much. It's the same thing.
So Rousseau identifies the rupture in social terms and rekindles the spiritual register. Inequality and property have twisted the natural good, so citizens need to be shaped through moral sentiment, civil religion, and a general will that unites the many as one. This restores spirit as a communal force rather than a mere theological addition. its an ideal turn from Descartes but the material is very much buried in here when in Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, he identifies property as a root cause of social inequality and injustice. This is how these turns work, the previous sets up motion for the next turn.
Hegel isn't a turn as much as he maps the whole structure ̷b̷y̷ ̷p̷l̷a̷g̷i̷a̷r̷i̷z̷i̷n̷g̷ ̷W̷e̷s̷t̷e̷r̷n̷ ̷E̷s̷o̷t̷e̷r̷i̷c̷i̷s̷t̷s̷.̷ He draws on Böhme's Ungrund-myth and the Lurianic cycle, influenced by sources like Brucker's Historia Critica Philosophiae, which frames Kabbalah in a Lurianic light, and Swabian Pietists like Oetinger, who blended Lurianic ideas with Böhme. Hegel encountered Lurianic Kabbalah through Knorr von Rosenroth's Kabbala Denudata, which he cited in his lectures, along with Abraham Cohen Herrera's Porta Coelorum. In his philosophy, pure Being contracts like Ein Sof in tzimtzum, giving rise to Difference and Nothing; this self-limitation bursts into Nature, reflecting shevirat ha-kelim where Spirit's light fractures into finite shards. History becomes the work of Weltgeist, a collective force gathering those shards through determinate negation, where contradictions are preserved, lifted, and woven into unity, a rational tikkun. The triad Logic-Nature-Spirit transforms theosophy into a secular form, with categories unfolding like sefirot in dialectical harmony, culminating in an ethical state where freedom comes to life. By turning Kabbalistic rupture and repair into a political engine grounded in the present, Hegel offers left thinkers a roadmap for the material turn.
The next step connects Hess (+Feuerbach) & Marx to the material turn: 19th c. edition. The story starts with Hess. Hess takes up this Lurianic-infused Hegelian structure, and weaves in Spinoza's monism, which sees thought and extension as modes of a single substance, to envision a reconciled community - a restored whole by human agency. While Kant's teleology provides a backdrop of purposeful history, Hess roots it back into human agency, secularizing motifs like tzimtzum and tikkun into a philosophy of the deed (1843). He insists that abstract theory must join with action to overcome fragmentation, challenging Hegel's view of Geist unfolding on its own and arguing that human deeds must actively drive its realization, enacting a secular tikkun through collective effort. Hess's guiding idea, which can be summed up by reworking Descartes' cogito (I think, therefore I am) to what Hess says in his 1843 essay -we think therefore we are and do. Here, he stresses the union of thought and deed within organic social life. In works like Philosophie der Tat and his 1846 Communist Confession, he presents communal ownership as the Kingdom of God on earth, denouncing private property as a money-devil that estranges human essence and calling for ethical socialism to heal it. This catechism-style approach fed ideas into the Communist Manifesto, though Marx later critiqued its prophetic tone as True Socialism.
Marx learns from Hess in the 1840s, whom he initially admired and who turned Engels to communism, but Marx moves away from the esoteric language in the later 1840s, covering over the esotericism with a think materialist scaffolding. Hess's critique of passive materialism, emphasizing self-education and praxis, shapes Marx's Theses on Feuerbach, especially the third thesis, which faults static views for ignoring agency and splitting society. Marx refines this into revolutionary practice as the merging of changing circumstances and human activity. Though Engels undermined Hess's draft for the League's Confession of Faith to prioritize class struggle over ethical humanism, Marx absorbed Hess's visions of human led repair, alienation and redemptive history, reworking them in materialist terms. In the 1844 Manuscripts, communism mends the gaps between essence and existence, freedom and necessity. Despite dismissing True Socialism to claim originality, Hess's motifs persist in Marx, recast as primitive accumulation, alienation, and proletarian praxis. This is the first material turn.
After this material turn, the pattern swings back into spirit with cultural Marxism, particularly through the Frankfurt School, where thinkers like Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse craft a cultural critique of ideology, hegemony, and commodification, weaving in Marx’s material analysis to explore how capitalism shapes consciousness and daily life through processes like reification, which echoes the Lurianic concept of kelipot as husks that encase and obscure divine sparks. Reification, as Lukacs builds on Marx’s commodity fetishism, transforms living human relations into rigid, thing-like entities under capitalism's commodity form, imprinting consciousness so that personal qualities turn into quantifiable objects detached from identity, extending alienation from economic spheres to intricate mental and social domains, much like kelipot thrive on misplaced belief to sustain disorder and illusion. Adorno and Horkheimer dissect mass media as a culture industry that molds perception and desire, Marcuse portrays a one-dimensional world that stifles dissent, and Habermas raises concerns about the colonization of the lifeworld; this spiritual-cultural phase sustains the earlier materialism by blending body's economic foundation with spirit's cultural superstructure. Figures like Gramsci highlight cultural hegemony as the arena where ideals are channeled through institutions, originating in the factory where material structures shape superstructures, necessitating a war of position in civil society to secure consent through modest concessions without challenging the ruling core, while Lukács advocates reclaiming totality to break reified illusions through proletarian awareness of society’s constructed nature. Critical Theory from the Frankfurt School looms large here, laying the groundwork for Western Marxism’s spiritual turn by analyzing culture as a site of domination and resistance, a legacy that deeply influences the later woke movement by fostering a critical consciousness, which sets us up for the next turn: Woke.
At "Woke," all the familiar terms are here, Critical consciousness, critical pedagogy, woke ideology, and Critical Race Theory. Here, in this turn, Paulo Freire’s concept of conscientizacao serves as a pivotal mechanism, building on the Frankfurt School and Gramsci’s insights by transforming education into a dynamic process of critical consciousness. Freire, in works like Pedagogy of the Oppressed, advocates for problem-posing dialogue that bridges reflection and action, empowering students to analyze and challenge oppressive structures (law, policing, housing, finance, health care, and media) by recognizing how these systems perpetuate inequality and limit access, rather than passively accepting them as natural. This critical consciousness awakens individuals to the hidden power dynamics embedded in everyday life, encouraging them to act collectively to dismantle reified realities. Critical Race Theory (CRT) and related frameworks extend this by centering standpoint epistemology and the identification of patterned biases, treating these not as personal sentiments but as diagnostic tools to unveil the "second nature" of institutional racism and systemic oppression, all of which are concepts that align with Lukacs’ reification and the Lurianic kelipot as husks obscuring divine sparks. CRT scholars like Derrick Bell and Kimberlé Crenshaw argue that racism is not just individual prejudice but a structural feature encoded in policies, legal systems, and cultural norms, requiring a reexamination of history and power to restore agency. Because hegemony (Gramsci) rests on a material foundation, these recognitional gains naturally extend beyond mind and spirit to body, implying that once the frameworks of bias are clear, solutions manifest as tangible reforms, like budgets, ownership and land use, labor regimes, infrastructure, and public goods. In this sense, the ideal-cultural turn of woke ideology, CRT, and critical pedagogy, fueled by Freire’s conscientizacao, primes the next material turn, now scaled to address global disparities and planetary constraints.
So - Esotericism supplies the triad at the level of first principles, establishing a foundational structure that underpins the mind-body-spirit dynamic. In Hermetic and alchemical traditions, the cosmos is envisioned as a single fabric of correspondences, with the human microcosm reflecting the macrocosm, a principle explicitly articulated in texts like the Emerald Tablet.
Alchemy provides a working model through the tria prima (salt, sulphur, and mercury) each carrying symbolic and practical significance that maps onto the mind-body-spirit triad while also resonating with elemental and cosmological frameworks like heaven and earth or fire and water. Salt represents the fixed, stable, and corporeal element, aligning with body as the domain of matter, tools, property, and institutions, grounding the physical structures of existence. This fixed quality ties salt to earth in traditional alchemy, where earth symbolizes the solid, tangible foundation of the material world (similar to the lower sefirah Malkuth in the Kabbalistic Tree of Life). Sulphur represents the fiery, cognitive aspect, the principle of form, intention, and transformation, which fits mind as the realm of insight, critique, and intellectual discernment. Its fiery nature connects sulphur to heaven or fire in esoteric thought, representing the active, illuminating force of thought and spirit ascending toward divine understanding, similar to the upper sefirah Kether, though its dynamic quality also bridges toward transformative action. Mercury, the mediating, volatile, and animating principle, joins these opposites, corresponding to spirit as the will, mores, cultus, and the shared vessel that unites a people, facilitating movement and reconciliation across levels. Mercury’s fluidity and adaptability links it to water or the heavenly mediator in alchemical cosmology, reflecting the balancing sefirah Tiferet that harmonizes the upper and lower realms, enabling the lawful traffic of "as above, so below."
This alignment with heaven and earth or fire and water isn’t a perfect one-to-one match but reflects a layered symbolism. In classical alchemy, the four elements (earth, water, air, and fire) interact within the tria prima, where salt embodies earth’s stability, sulphur carries fire’s transformative energy, and mercury incorporates water’s fluidity and air’s volatility. Heaven and earth often symbolize the macrocosmic and microcosmic poles, with salt grounding the earthly body and sulphur aspiring toward the heavenly mind, while mercury mediates as the spiritual bridge, akin to water flowing between realms or air animating them. Paracelsus, a key alchemical figure, emphasized this triadic balance over the four-element system, seeing salt, sulphur, and mercury as principles of body, soul, and spirit, connects to Hegel’s Logic-Nature-Spirit triad. The Kabbalistic sefirot reinforce this, with Malkuth (earth/body), Kether (heaven/mind), and Tiferet (mediating spirit) mirroring the alchemical flow.
It is important to note that the correspondence isn’t rigid. Fire and water as elemental pairs might suggest a dualistic tension (sulphur’s fire versus mercury’s water), but alchemy integrates them into a triadic unity, with mercury harmonizing the opposites rather than opposing fire directly. Heaven and earth align more broadly with the macrocosm-microcosm axis, where salt’s earthiness anchors the body, sulphur’s fire elevates the mind toward heavenly insight, and mercury’s water-like mediation embodies spirit’s cultural unity. This nuanced layering explains why esotericism supplies the mind-body-spirit dynamic: it offers a flexible yet structured model where elemental and cosmological symbols (heaven-earth, fire-water) underpin the triadic interplay, transmitted through Hermetic alchemy and Kabbalistic drama into Hegel’s dialectical system and leftist praxis. Hegel’s triad, for instance, secularizes this by framing Logic (mind/heavenly insight), Nature (body/earthly matter), and Spirit (cultural reconciliation/mercurial mediation), while Hess & Marx adapt it to prioritize body’s material repair without losing the spiritual telos, reflecting the esoteric roots plainly in their oscillatory pattern.
This triadic interplay, rooted in alchemical practice and Hermetic philosophy, provides the initial blueprint for the dynamic we see in later thought.
Kabbalah, particularly the Lurianic stream, add texture this triad with a historical drama that gives it narrative depth and purpose. Withdrawal/contraction (tzimtzum) opens space for finitude, shattering.rupture (shevirat ha-kelim) scatters divine light into worldly false husks, and repair (tikkun) becomes the human task of raising and reordering those sparks to restore the finite’s reflection of the infinite. The Tree of Life maps this across levels linked by paths of interrelation, emphasizing that knowing (mind), willing (spirit), and making (body) form a single circuit. Unlike earlier esoteric traditions that might favor escape, this Lurianic view, transmitted into German thought via Christian Kabbalists like Knorr von Rosenroth (as cited by Hegel), focuses on recomposing the shattered material world rather than fleeing it, requiring mind for discernment of the rupture, spirit for solidarity and intentional repair, and body for the vessels that hold this restored harmony. This shift from transcendence to world-affirmation, is the key contribution of Kabbalah to the triad’s evolution.
This package of esoteric principles moves into modern thought, with Hegel receiving it most explicitly through Boehme and Christian Kabbalistic sources, recoding it into Logic (mind as the unfolding of ideal categories), Nature (body as the material realm of alienation), and Spirit (cultural synthesis as the reconciling force), where negativity and reconciliation replace Hermetic separation and conjunction. Hess starts the turn to the material and adapts this grammar into a philosophy of the deed, insisting that restoration hinges on organized action to mend societal fractures, which is tikkun’s human agency. Marx then pivots all the way into the material, emphasizing production, property, and the state as the sites where vessels are built and reified husks broken and remade, without abandoning the inherited horizon of freedom, aligning with the material turn’s focus on concrete transformation. So, esotericism supplies the mind-body-spirit dynamic through Hermeticism’s triadic ontology and Kabbalah’s historical drama, transmitted via Hegel’s synthesis and adapted by Hess & Marx into a leftist framework of oscillatory repair.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵Let’s “plain speak” the broad esoteric drama forming the structure of all of these Marxist and post Marxist theories. Each of these trace a cosmic drama: sacred unity contracts and shatters, forming false husks. Divine sparks scatter to the margins. Each theory seeks to awaken these sparks and begin the work of gathering what was broken and helping to restore the marginalized back into a repaired unity consciousness.
What this chart does is lay out the same drama again and again, row by row, but with different casting and different repair instructions. The column headings works like a legend on a map of (post) Marxist theories because they are structurally the same. Why? Because they are all built on this esoteric drama of rupture→elect-led repair→return to wholeness.
The Primary Power Relations column names the axis of rupture. Dominant Groups names the human face of the false center. Ideology or Framework names the story that legitimates it. Preeminent Systems or Structures names the machinery that sustains it - the false husk. Marginalized or Oppressed Groups names where the "sparks" land in exile (or not exiled and within the false husk). Consciousness-Raising Goals names awakening. Aims or Objectives to Agitate For names the (beginning) repair program that starts the process to a return to wholeness, back to unity consciousness.
Stage one: Unity consciousness and contraction.
Every row implicitly assumes an original moral coherence, a sense that human life could be integrated. People can belong without being degraded. Work, recognition, family life, identity, culture, and nature can fit together without one group having to be sacrificed to stabilize the whole. Theories disagree about how to describe that wholeness, but they share the same background intuition, a properly ordered life would feel reciprocal, integrated, and real. That is why each row can name distortion with confidence. A wound can only be named if there is some tacit sense of what an un-wounded order would be.
So why does withdrawal happen in this Esoteric reading of (post) Marxism? The inference is that these theories need a “contraction” step to explain how domination can exist without being natural. If equality, reciprocity, or shared human dignity is the moral baseline, then hierarchy has to be explained as a break, not a given. Contraction supplies the condition of possibility for that break. It creates distance, opacity, and separation, the space in which a false center can form.
For Luria specifically, contraction creates room for created autonomy and multiplicity, and that room carries risk because vessels can fail. In the Marxist and post-Marxist register, the contraction is translated into historical and social equivalents: the mediation of life by abstraction, money, bureaucracy, classification, borders, and institutional power; the thinning of direct reciprocity; the introduction of scarcity logic; the loss of a shared measure of the good; the conditions that allow power to occupy the gap where wholeness used to be felt.
Different rows in the chart narrate the contraction differently because they choose different “first openings” in the social fabric. The Marxist row will point to dispossession, enclosure, and the creation of wage dependence. The postcolonial row will point to conquest, extraction, and epistemic domination. The feminist row will point to the capture of reproduction, authority, and embodied legitimacy. The critical race row will point to racialized law and institutional ordering. The queer row will point to the tightening of normativity and the policing of intelligibility.
The chart really shows how (post) Marxist's theoretical diversity is surficial, because the structure is shared. One there was a unity with the divine consciousness, but it withdraws, and a rupture happens. An elect can see this rupture and can help the divine to lead a raised consciousness to repair this break and restore wholeness. You can read more about this turn here in this other thread: x.com/Ne_pas_couvrir…
Stage two: Rupture, husk formation, and the locked system
This is the shattering - the rupture. The vessels that should hold common life cannot contain the stresses and contradictions of history. You can see each theory's “crack” in the Primary Power Relations column, and these theories read everything through that lens (this is why the left sees the world in an inverted way - they force everything through this lens). Look at the chart: Class and property. Race and institutional power. Gender and patriarchy. Normativity and identity policing. Colonial power and imperial knowledge. Core and periphery. Extraction and ecological fracture. The claim is not merely that harm occurs, but that the harm reveals the underlying architecture of the false center.
From the shattering, a dominant, false, oppressive arrangement coagulates and pretends it was always there, masquerading as the real system. The false center is the stabilizing shell (false husk) that occupies the opened space and then insists it is simply reality.
This is where the hegemonic core belongs. The hegemonic core is the false center understood as self-legitimating. It is force plus a story. It is coercion plus consent. It is institutions plus norms plus metrics that teach people what normal is. It renames itself the center, rewrites maps and measures, pathologizes dissent, and trains people to mistake domination for order. Referring back to the chart, Ideology or Framework supplies the legitimating story and Preeminent Systems or Structures supplies the machinery that makes the story feel inevitable.
The (post) Marxist terms of Marginalization, alienation, and reification are not separate events after rupture. They are how rupture becomes a stable world. Let's explain.
Marginalization is the spatial logic of the husk. Once the false center hardens, it must manage what it cannot integrate. It pushes vital energies outward and marks them as inferior, deviant, backward, criminal, ignorant, or disposable. This chart tracks that movement in Marginalized or Oppressed Groups. Esoterically, those groups are not only disadvantaged. They are the carriers of what the false center has excluded in order to keep itself coherent. They are sparks in exile.
Alienation is the lived psychology of exile. It is estrangement from labor, community, meaning, and even the self. It is what it feels like to exist inside an order that misnames you, reduces you to a role, treats your presence as a problem to be managed, or turns your life into an input for someone else’s system. Alienation matters here because it explains why awakening is framed as liberation. The spark does not just learn a theory. The true spark remembers itself as more than the husk’s description.
Reification is the metaphysics of the husk. Living relations harden into things. Contingent arrangements start to feel like laws of nature. The market, the system, race, gender roles, normalcy, development, security, merit become external forces that appear autonomous and unavoidable. The husk traps sparks by freezing a historical power arrangement into an ontological fact. Reification also locks in alienation by telling the person nothing can change, this is just how the world is, even when the “world” in question is a human construction held together by power. The esoteric parallel for reification is kelipot; the terms are essentially the same.
Taken together, hegemony, marginalization, alienation, and reification are the internal mechanics of rupture. They explain how a break becomes a durable order and why the false center can all feel like common sense.
🧵When people say "the constitution is left, and to be on the side of the king is right", they are conflating two very different modern intellectual lineages: one that shaped the American constitutional tradition, and another, esoteric line of political thought running from Descartes through Rousseau, Hegel, Moses Hess, and Karl Marx, and post-Marx.
Both arose in the modern era, but they’re built on completely different assumptions about human nature, the role of the state, and how (or whether) history needs to be "repaired."
Let me walk it out in a loose "plain speak" the best I can.
Where does "left" & "right" actually come from?
The terms left and right in politics trace back to the French Revolution, specifically the National Assembly in 1789. Rousseau is, of course, relevant here.
In the French National Assembly after 1789, defenders of the king, the church, and hereditary privilege sat on the president’s right. Reformers who wanted popular sovereignty and the dismantling of feudal privilege sat to his left. "Right" meant hierarchy, throne and altar; "left" meant revolution (See: Rousseau).
If [King / not King] is all anyone mean by left and right, then sure, the American Revolution was "left" compared to the British crown. The colonists rejected monarchy and asserted popular sovereignty. Sure.
But the intellectual DNA of the American founding is not French Jacobinism; it comes out of a very different stream of thought: English common law, Protestant political reflection, and Scottish "common sense" philosophy (SCSR). SCSR does not share the same basic storyline about history, rupture, and redemption that runs from Rousseau through Hegel, Moses Hess, and Marx.
To see that, we need to zoom out and look at two completely different modern projects, both with very different intellectual lineages.
Two modern projects inside "the Enlightenment"
Let's do a little housekeeping with terms. Many talk about "the Enlightenment" like it is one big bloc that runs from Descartes to Rousseau to Kant to the French Revolution. However Descartes → Rousseau→ Hegel → Hess → Marx → Post Marx was most assuredly the Counter Enlightenment with deep roots to an ancient esoteric intellectual tradition. We should probably start there. I'll need some space to explain this properly.
Let's talk about part of "Kabbalah and the Rupture of Modernity" by Eli Rubin. A core idea is how a 16th-C idea of tzimtzum (divine contraction) prefigures Descartes’ mind-body dualism and the broader modern sense that being is discontinuous rather than seamlessly connected.
The core argument, put simply is, before Luria, most mystical and philosophical traditions imagined reality as a smooth flow from God to the world (like a pyramid with God at the top). Luria dramatically reversed this: God had to withdraw completely to create space for anything else to exist.
Rubin shows this “rupture” is not just a mystical detail. It is the original model for modern experiences of alienation, dualism (mind/body split), and the sense that existence itself is fragile or problematic. Chabad Hasidism, over generations, wrestled with this rupture and turned it into a hopeful, existential spirituality that speaks directly to modern life. We're going to focus mostly on Descartes here though.
What is Tzimtzum anyway? Tzimtzum is not just a technical term; it is the origin of rupture. Before creation, infinite divine light filled everything. To create a finite world, God contracted Himself, withdrawing His light completely and leaving a void. This is no gentle dimming. It is a total, dramatic break with the older Neoplatonic idea of seamless emanation. The book insists this absolute rupture is the first modern idea, predating Descartes by decades. Rubin opens with the polysemy of the word itself, exploring translations like contraction, concentration, concealment, curtailment, or closure, and how these imply different relational dynamics between God and reality. Rubin engages debates between Gershom Scholem (a legendary historian), who saw tzimtzum evolving from concentration in Midrash to withdrawal in Lurianism, and Moshe Idel, who traced withdrawal back to medieval figures like Nahmanides. Rubin objects to Idel's view, noting that Nahmanides described only a partial handbreadth contraction introducing darkness, whereas Luria's version is a totalizing, equitable evacuation of light, leaving no direct antecedent. This absoluteness breaks with Neoplatonism's seamless emanation, where beings flow iteratively from the One. Instead, tzimtzum entails an infinite rupture, leveling the cosmic hierarchy so that all points, from crass physicality to spiritual apex, are equally removed from the infinite light, or eyn sof.
In Lurianic teaching, infinite divine light filled everything before creation, leaving no room for a finite world. God contracted Himself into a central point, withdrawing light to form a spherical void, then sent a straight line of light back in to build structured realms.
This is a dramatic, total rupture, not a gradual fade.
Let's do a few long posts laying out Hess's influence on Marx. 🧵
So, Hegel absorbs Böhme's Ungrund-myth and the Lurianic cycle into philosophy, drawing from sources like Johann Jakob Brucker's Historia Critica Philosophiae, whose treatment of Kabbalah is largely Lurianic, as well as Swabian Pietists like Oetinger who reworked Lurianic ideas and synthesized them with Böhme. Hegel encountered Lurianic Kabbalah directly through Knorr von Rosenroth's Kabbala Denudata, which he cited in his lectures, referencing Abraham Cohen Herrera's Porta coelorum (Magee). Pure Being contracts, like Ein Sof, in tzimtzum, yielding Difference and Nothing; this self-limitation explodes as Nature, a world of finite forms mirroring shevirat ha-kelim, where Spirit's light is refracted into opaque shards. History becomes the labor of Weltgeist, a collective agent gathering sparks through determinate negation (Aufhebung): each contradiction is preserved, lifted, and woven into fuller unity, a rational tikkun without human agency. The triad of Logic-Nature-Spirit thinly secularizes theosophy, with categories unfolding like the Sefirot in dialectical reconciliation, culminating in the ethical state where freedom realizes itself.
Hess inherits this Lurianic-infused Hegelian framework, blending it with Spinoza's monism from the Ethics, which treats thought and extension as modes of a single substance and informs Hess's vision of a reconciled community. While Kant's regulative teleology in the Critique of Judgment and his providential view of history in the 1784 "Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Aim" provide a background for seeing progress as purposeful (albeit antagonistic), Hess anchors this teleology in human agency, secularizing it into praxis through his "philosophy of the deed" and making communal reconciliation the product of conscious action rather than inevitable unfolding (Hess, "Philosophie der Tat"; Avineri).
Hess then transposes the Lurianic-Hermetic grammar from Hegel and others into praxis. Drawing from Spinoza, Hegel, and his own Judeo-Christian synthesis, already framed by the eschatological horizon of The Holy History of Mankind (Avineri; Rosen), Hess secularizes the Lurianic motifs of withdrawal (tzimtzum) and repair (tikkun) into a philosophy of the deed (Philosophie der Tat), insisting in the early 1840s that abstract theory must unite with action to overcome social fragmentation (Avineri). Critiquing Hegel for allowing Geist to unfold somewhat independently through history, Hess argues that human deeds must consciously drive its realization, infusing a theurgic element in which collective praxis enacts a secular tikkun with human agency that repairs alienation by intentional action rather than divine intervention (Rosen). From Philosophie der Tat and the draft Entwurf in the Moses Hess Papers, IISH Amsterdam, Nachlass B 21, the guiding maxim is best treated as an inference: “we act, therefore we are,” paired with his demand for the “union of thought and deed” grounded in organic social life (Hess, “Philosophie der Tat”; Rosen. In this essay he privileges act over being, recasts the Cartesian cogito, and states that not being but the act is first and last (Hess, “Philosophie der Tat”). He popularizes this activist program in catechetical form, notably the 1846 “Communist Confession in Questions and Answers,” which presents communal ownership as the “Kingdom of God on earth,” and he reframes withdrawal and repair as alienation and communal restoration to be achieved through organized deeds rather than private edification; he also condemns private property as the “money-devil” that estranges humans from their species-essence, calling for ethical socialism to mend it (Hess, “Über das Geldwesen”; Avineri ). As Avineri and Rosen show, this catechism-style socialism supplied forms, slogans, and draft materials that circulated into the Communist Manifesto, even as Marx criticized its prophetic tone (Avineri; Rosen).Marx learns from Hess but later contests his esoteric language, superficially erecting a materialist scaffold over the esoteric structure to camouflage its magical appearances while retaining its core. Hess's influence on Marx and Engels in the early 1840s is hard to overstate. Hess was the man who convinced Friedrich Engels of communism: as Engels recalled, "Last year, when I was about to travel to Paris, he came through Cologne from Berlin; we spoke about contemporary issues, and he, a revolutionary of the Anno I [French Revolution], left me as the most fervent communist" (Rosen).
Let's🧵 "plain speak" collective consciousness raising esoterically. Collective consciousness raising works on two levels. There's an exoteric layer that's out in the open and helps bind people together. Then there's an esoteric layer that's more hidden and provides the deeper meaning or engine behind it all. Groups use these layers to wake up to some kind of perceived problem or rupture in the world and then chase a goal oriented fix.
First, let's look at the exoteric layer. This is the out in the open coordination system.
What it is includes shared narratives, moral codes, catchphrases, and organizations. For example, things like "justice" in social justice movements or "our people" in ethnos movements.
What it does is get people moving through protests, pilgrimages, campaigns. It signals belonging with flags, hashtags, badges. It legitimizes leaders as interpreters of the story. It recruits and polices boundaries with membership rules, loyalty tests.
Where you see it is in schools, media, law, manifestos, etc. These lead to holidays, oaths, dress codes, policy talking points.
It scales to the masses, but it takes its direction from the hidden layer.
Now let's shift to the esoteric layer. This part is like the engine under the hood of a car. It runs quietly in the background but powers everything. The esoteric layer explains why the group even exists in the first place. It points out who the special "elect" or chosen ones are. These are the people or figures tasked with leading the way. It also lays out how to fix what is broken in the world. At its heart, this layer is a concealed metaphysics or myth. Metaphysics here means a way of thinking about the fundamental nature of reality. The myth is a story that gives structure to that thinking. Together, they paint the big picture. They describe where everything came from originally. They explain what went wrong, like a rupture or withdrawal that caused division or loss. And they map the path back to repair and wholeness, restoring what was lost.
This esoteric layer supplies both meaning and method for the group. It always includes several key components. First is cosmology, which is the overall story of the universe or reality. It maps the source of everything, the ruin or breakdown that happened, and the way to get back to harmony. Next is what I want to tentatively call anthropology, which defines who or what carries the repair work. This could be souls in a spiritual sense, a chosen people in a national or religious context, or all of humanity in broader ideas. Then there is soteriology, a term for what actually does the saving or repairing. This might involve rituals, actions, or sacred practices. Finally, there is praxis for the elect. Praxis means practical action. For the chosen ones, it involves required disciplines, or specific steps.
The esoteric layer relates to the exoteric by giving it purpose. The hidden myth provides the why behind the visible actions and symbols. When the esoteric ideas change over time, the exoteric elements like slogans, rites, and institutions eventually adjust to fit the new understanding.
Good question. Let's do a🧵In this [withdrawal → rupture → repair → wholeness] model there is no separate demiurge. Distortion unfolds inside one reality. the decisive events occur within the One (say a unity consciousness, a Godhead, Geist), not by a rival maker, and they treat the break and the mixed condition that follows as the pivot of the story. This framework resists dualism. What can look like a secondary creator is framed as an appearance of the One’s activity rather than an independent being.
The opening move is a narrowing that makes historical room, followed by a break in the ordering of things that leaves a residue. This process is internal within (the Geist, the oneness), and the framework is explicit re; the internality of this process and the persistence of a trace after contraction; this explains how fragments can still bear the mark of the source even in a damaged field.
Read with Marx, the narrowing corresponds to an early, more fluid social matrix before large-scale expropriation. The break corresponds to primitive accumulation, the violent start that tears shared resources from common life and concentrates them. The residue names the living capacities that continue within the new order after the tear. Out of this tear a false center coalesces. It looks natural and necessary, yet it is reproduced by social practice. Marginalization pushes people to the rim of this center. Alienation names the estrangement that follows. Reification names the hardening of living relations into rigid shells that conceal their human origin. The classic image of a dense outer shell parallels this hardening while never implying a rival maker. These “shells” are residues and blockages that depend on leaked vitality and human failure, and they can be thinned and reversed through right practice.