PDA

View Full Version : Ayin



inquirer
02-15-2014, 10:30 PM
Is there any relationship between ayin (the sixteenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet), and the word "ayin" (Strong's number 369)?

Richard Amiel McGough
02-16-2014, 08:47 AM
Is there any relationship between ayin (the sixteenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet), and the word "ayin" (Strong's number 369)?
Nope. They are totally different words.

inquirer
02-16-2014, 12:17 PM
So does that mean that they're not spelled or pronounced the same?

Richard Amiel McGough
02-16-2014, 01:36 PM
So does that mean that they're not spelled or pronounced the same?
They are not spelled the same, but they are rather similar in pronunciation since both the aleph and the ayin are glottal stops.

And their meanings are entirely different. One means "eye" or "fountain" while the other means "nothing" or "none".

inquirer
02-16-2014, 04:00 PM
And their meanings are entirely different. One means "eye" or "fountain" while the other means "nothing" or "none".

So why does this website say this?


Ayin ע /Eye; Nothingness/The 16th letter of the Hebrew alphabet
http://www.headcoverings-by-devorah.com/HebglossA.html

Richard Amiel McGough
02-16-2014, 04:50 PM
So why does this website say this?


Ayin ע /Eye; Nothingness/The 16th letter of the Hebrew alphabet

http://www.headcoverings-by-devorah.com/HebglossA.html
It's because that page is a list of Hebrew words that have been transliterated into English. The page describes itself as an In-depth Glossary of Transliterated & English Translation with their Meanings of the Hebrew Language.

The two different Hebrew words have the same transliteration:




אין

Strong's 369 'ayin {ah'-yin} as if from a primitive root meaning to be nothing or not exist; subst n neg adv w/prep AV - except, faileth, fatherless, incurable, infinite, innumerable, neither, never, no, none, not, nothing, nought, without; 29 1) nothing, not, nought n 1a) nothing, nought neg 1b) not 1c) to have not (of possession) adv 1d) without w/prep 1e) for lack of



עין

Strong's 5869 'ayin {ah'-yin} probably a primitive word; n f/m AV - eye 495, sight 216, seem 19, colour 12, fountain 11, well 11, face 10, pleased + 03190 10, presence 8, displeased + 03415 8, before 8, pleased + 03474 4, conceit 4, think 4, misc 66; 887 1) eye 1a) eye 1a1) of physical eye 1a2) as showing mental qualities 1a3) of mental and spiritual faculties (fig.) 2) spring, fountain

sylvius
02-17-2014, 12:28 AM
It's because that page is a list of Hebrew words that have been transliterated into English. The page describes itself as an In-depth Glossary of Transliterated & English Translation with their Meanings of the Hebrew Language.

The two different Hebrew words have the same transliteration:




אין

Strong's 369 'ayin {ah'-yin} as if from a primitive root meaning to be nothing or not exist; subst n neg adv w/prep AV - except, faileth, fatherless, incurable, infinite, innumerable, neither, never, no, none, not, nothing, nought, without; 29 1) nothing, not, nought n 1a) nothing, nought neg 1b) not 1c) to have not (of possession) adv 1d) without w/prep 1e) for lack of



עין

Strong's 5869 'ayin {ah'-yin} probably a primitive word; n f/m AV - eye 495, sight 216, seem 19, colour 12, fountain 11, well 11, face 10, pleased + 03190 10, presence 8, displeased + 03415 8, before 8, pleased + 03474 4, conceit 4, think 4, misc 66; 887 1) eye 1a) eye 1a1) of physical eye 1a2) as showing mental qualities 1a3) of mental and spiritual faculties (fig.) 2) spring, fountain



Yet they present it as the meaning of "ayin" spelled as "ayin-yud-nun"

It think as a hint to the saying "I am the Alpha and the Omega" -:winking0071:

( אֲנִי, , "ani" = I, written with the same letters as אין, "ein"= nothing.)

Richard Amiel McGough
02-17-2014, 01:35 PM
Yet they present it as the meaning of "ayin" spelled as "ayin-yud-nun"

It think as a hint to the saying "I am the Alpha and the Omega" -:winking0071:

( אֲנִי, , "ani" = I, written with the same letters as אין, "ein"= nothing.)
Yes, the Jews have long expounded on the connection between the anagrams ain (nothing) and ani (I). I think it fits well with mystical psychology.

As for the connection with omega - I know you take omicron and omega as the "little" and "big" eyes, and that seems justified by their names, and the correspondence between the Greek omicron and Hebrew ayin. And I suppose we could see the idea of "omega" as the big all-seeing eye, that is "opened" at the "end of time" (omega).

sylvius
02-17-2014, 02:22 PM
Yes, the Jews have long expounded on the connection between the anagrams ain (nothing) and ani (I). I think it fits well with mystical psychology.

As for the connection with omega - I know you take omicron and omega as the "little" and "big" eyes, and that seems justified by their names, and the correspondence between the Greek omicron and Hebrew ayin. And I suppose we could see the idea of "omega" as the big all-seeing eye, that is "opened" at the "end of time" (omega).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayin_and_Yesh



Dov Ber of Mezeritch says:

one should think of one's self as Ayin, and that "absolute all" and "absolute nothingness" are the same, and that the person who learns to think about himself as Ayin will ascend to a spiritual world, where everything is the same and everything is equal: "life and death, ocean and dry land.

Richard Amiel McGough
02-17-2014, 03:38 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayin_and_Yesh

one should think of one's self as Ayin, and that "absolute all" and "absolute nothingness" are the same, and that the person who learns to think about himself as Ayin will ascend to a spiritual world, where everything is the same and everything is equal: "life and death, ocean and dry land.


Yeah, I'm quite familiar with those ideas. I studied Kabbalah for a few years before converting to Christianity. I thought perhaps I was meant to be a Jew because I fell in love with Hebrew and mystical Jewish thought.

zypcash
10-21-2014, 06:27 PM
Greetings All, First post on here. Just wanted to add that I think the two concepts are very much related semantically. No-thing is the "fountain" of existence and so is "qualia" (eye/sight) the basis of our experience. The 3 negative veils of Ayin, Ayin-Sof, Ayin-Sof-Aur also describe the negative and its development into "light" (eye/sight) via Infinity (Ayin-Sof).

The basic idea is that No-thing (Ayin) is a paradox and leads to an infinite regression (Ayin-Sof).

The upshot is the creation of Time (infinity) and Space (eternity) - ex nihilo.

I guess "light" (Aur) is Energy. Time constitutes the infinite regression itself (never the same) - Space, the result of a metaconstruct above this paradoxical root; with Light as its opposite. Yin and Yang (if you prefer) - WuJi (Ayin) followed by TaiJi (Ayin-Sof-Aur).

So, I'd say there is a coherent and important connection between the two words semantically. The "Self" and "G*d" unite in a 1st Person = 3rd Person conjunction - "Son" (1st) with "Father" (3rd). My view (1st Person) and the "view from nowhere" (3rd Person) also echo this relationship between the two words: No-thing (Ayin) as the fountain of existence (3rd Person), and eye (Ayin) of sight (1st Person).

The old Phoenician letter "Ayin" was also a circle: suggesting "Zero" and an "Eye".

Thanks for your consideration,
SMK.

Richard Amiel McGough
10-21-2014, 06:54 PM
Greetings All, First post on here. Just wanted to add that I think the two concepts are very much related semantically. No-thing is the "fountain" of existence and so is "qualia" (eye/sight) the basis of our experience. The 3 negative veils of Ayin, Ayin-Sof, Ayin-Sof-Aur also describe the negative and its development into "light" (eye/sight) via Infinity (Ayin-Sof).

The basic idea is that No-thing (Ayin) is a paradox and leads to an infinite regression (Ayin-Sof).

The upshot is the creation of Time (infinity) and Space (eternity) - ex nihilo.

I guess "light" (Aur) is Energy. Time constitutes the infinite regression itself (never the same) - Space, the result of a metaconstruct above this paradoxical root; with Light as its opposite. Yin and Yang (if you prefer) - WuJi (Ayin) followed by TaiJi (Ayin-Sof-Aur).

So, I'd say there is a coherent and important connection between the two words semantically. The "Self" and "G*d" unite in a 1st Person = 3rd Person conjunction - "Son" (1st) with "Father" (3rd). My view (1st Person) and the "view from nowhere" (3rd Person) also echo this relationship between the two words: No-thing (Ayin) as the fountain of existence (3rd Person), and eye (Ayin) of sight (1st Person).

The old Phoenician letter "Ayin" was also a circle: suggesting "Zero" and an "Eye".

Thanks for your consideration,
SMK.
Hey there SMK,

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

Re your signature: It is false to assert that "atheists" claim there are no absolutes. I'm and atheist, and I don't say that. Sure, there are some that do, but not all by any means. In my experience, the idea of "absolute relativism" seems most prevalent amongst New Age type folks, who also happen to be into stuff like Kabbalah. But that's probably just a coincidence. :rolleyes:

Re the shape of the Phoenician Ayin: the modern symbol for zero (0) was not used as such at that time. Why would you think there was any meaningful connection? It seems like a random coincidence to me. Do you have a way to discern between meaningful and meaningless coincidences?

As for the rest of your comments, I'm not sure what to make of them. I used to be quite enamoured with metaphysics and Kabbalah, but not any more. I got tired of talking about things that one really knew anything about and had no way to verify. It all seems like empty words to me now.

Hope that doesn't feel too much like a wet blanket. I'm sure you will find lots of folks here who might enjoy exploring the realm of imagination with you.

All the best,

Richard

zypcash
10-21-2014, 09:03 PM
Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:


Thanks for your warm welcome.



Re your signature: It is false to assert that "atheists" claim there are no absolutes. I'm and atheist, and I don't say that. Sure, there are some that do, but not all by any means. In my experience, the idea of "absolute relativism" seems most prevalent amongst New Age type folks, who also happen to be into stuff like Kabbalah.


In my experience, there are at least 3 kinds of "atheist":

1) The Skeptic - really agnostic (isn't sure, but leans towards the negative). I put Dawkins into this category - I've heard him admit to it in interviews more than once.
2) The Denier - chooses to believe in "no-god" without due consideration and the fallacy of flat denial.
3) The Gnostic - knows that G*d (sous rature) is a fundamental paradox of "No-Thing" (Ayin, the fountain of creation) and accepts this state of affairs. (I consider myself in this category.)

Notice that the quote in my signature still applies to me, as Gnostic Atheist, since it leads to a paradox. Yet, that paradox is affirmed - not its content (an absolute, un-absoluteness). The paradox exists a meta-level above its semantic content (which can neither be confirmed, nor denied - on its own level - since that's what a paradox indicates).

"Nothing in particular is everything in general."

Also, I'm not into "New Age", flowery, pseudo-Kabbalah ("Qababalah" etc). What I have studied (cf. Bnei Baruch) and read of Kabbalah (Kaplan, Drob etc) ties into and reinforces previously discerned principles (re: Taoism, Metaphysics/Logic, Physics etc).



Re the shape of the Phoenician Ayin: the modern symbol for zero (0) was not used as such at that time. Why would you think there was any meaningful connection? It seems like a random coincidence to me. Do you have a way to discern between meaningful and meaningless coincidences?


I think I remember reading that the ancient Sumerians used an imprinted circle as a placeholder - though, perhaps not explicitly like a modern (hindu-derived) "zero". The idea of a "placeholder" is inherently linked to the conception of Zero and also the paradox of "there, but not there" - somewhat like a "U-FO":

"U-FO's exist - we just don't know what they are."

So, as with the Sumerian instance (even if we only admit it as a "multiplier") this is an example of a symbol representing something else which is hidden. As with base10 notation:

10 = "one plus nine" => ten (where 0 = 9) [NB - in other bases the zero equals one minus the base.]

The hindus themselves used various symbols, including a simple dot - as do arabic speakers (who borrowed the concept from them).

You are right that the letter Ayin as a circle could just be a random coincidence - evenso, the form is still meaningful given the context of the discussion. Also, it may not be a random coincidence. We have no way to resolve this issue - yet the form of the letter stands, and is noted. I suppose we could argue for "synchronicity"...?

A further extrapolation of my previous line of reasoning (along an hermeneutic path) would be:

Amun = Ayin = No-Thing (hidden/invisible)
Ra = Ayin = Eye (visible)

The Ancient Egyptian conception of "Amun-Ra" would then also provide a valid link (via hermeneutics) to our discussion of "Ayin".



As for the rest of your comments, I'm not sure what to make of them. I used to be quite enamoured with metaphysics and Kabbalah, but not any more. I got tired of talking about things that one really knew anything about and had no way to verify. It all seems like empty words to me now.


I take an "hermeneutic" approach. Feel free to add and remove words as you see fit - but, the underlying semantics should remain the same (they are there, even if not recognised). I'm not just stating random ideas that I have encountered. There is an inherent logic and progression to it. Hermeneutically, I apply them in all cases - only refining them when a problem is identified. You are welcome to identify specific problems. Also, it seems you have given up on metaphysics without having explored it on hermeneutical terms. Perhaps various inconsistencies have convinced you of its redundancy...? (Hermeneutically speaking, metaphysics is immune to this arbitrary approach - being considered and refined as necessary.)



Hope that doesn't feel too much like a wet blanket. I'm sure you will find lots of folks here who might enjoy exploring the realm of imagination with you.


Again, as far as I'm concerned I am not "imagining" things. These are coherent concepts. Evenso,

"Logic is imaginary. Even imagination has rules."

SMK.

Richard Amiel McGough
10-21-2014, 09:36 PM
Thanks for your warm welcome.

My pleasure! Glad you are here.



In my experience, there at least 3 kinds of "atheist":

1) The Skeptic - really agnostic (isn't sure, but leans towards the negative). I put Dawkins into this category - I've heard him admit to it in interviews more than once.
2) The Denier - chooses to believe in "no-god" without due consideration and the fallacy of flat denial.
3) The Gnostic - knows that G*d (sous rature) is a fundamental paradox of "No-Thing" (Ayin, the fountain of creation) and accepts this state of affairs. (I consider myself in this category.)

Notice that the quote in my signature still applies to me, as Gnostic Atheist, since it leads to a paradox. Yet, that paradox is affirmed - not its content (an absolute, un-absoluteness). The paradox exists a meta-level above its semantic content (which can neither be confirmed, nor denied - on its own level - since that's what a paradox indicates).

I'm glad you are clarifying definitions. That's the root of most confusion and failed conversations.

It's curious that you contrast agnostic with atheist, even as you describe yourself as a "gnostic atheist." I define myself as an agnostic atheist. I am not a theists, so by definition I am a non-theist = atheist. But I don't have any way to know whether or not some unknown god exists, so I am an agnostic atheist.

Your description of "Deniers" sounds like folks who haven't thought deeply enough to understand what they are saying.

Your definition of Gnostic is novel. The word simply means "One who knows." It says nothing about the content of that knowledge.

Your use of the word(s) Ayin seems a bit confusing. You are using the same spelling for two totally different words. The word for "eye" is Ayin (the name of the 16th letter). It is spelled Ayin Yod Nun. This is a totally different word than Ain (nothing) which is spelled Aleph Yod Nun. The confusion is amplified when you say refer to Ayin as "fountain" (a correct meaning of that word) and then associate it with "Ain" meaning "no-thing" (a totally different word).

In general, I reject the existence of paradoxes. Certainly in the ordinary sense of contradiction, A is both A and Not A. On the other hand, there are mysteries that go beyond language, and perhaps create "paradoxes" when we try to articulate them, but that's not the same as saying that the paradox per se exists.




"Nothing in particular is everything in general."

Yeah, there's a way I can read that which makes sense. Rather like white noise that contains all frequencies. You could pick out any sound you like as a subset of all possible sounds.



Also, I'm not into "New Age", flowery, pseudo-Kabbalah ("Qababalah" etc). What I have studied (cf. Bnei Baruch) and read of Kabbalah (Kaplan, Drob etc) ties into and reinforces previously discerned principles (re: Taoism, Metaphysics/Logic, Physics etc).

Kablahblah! I love it! :lol:

I was just teasing you with that comment btw.



I think I remember reading that the ancient Sumerians used an imprinted circle as a placeholder - though, perhaps not explicitly like a modern (hindu-derived) "zero". The idea of a "placeholder" is inherently linked to the conception of Zero and also the paradox of "there, but not there" - somewhat like a "U-FO":

It would be interesting to learn more of the origin and discovery of zero. It was hard for folks to conceive of symbolizing nothing!



"U-FO's exist - we just don't know what they are."

Indeed.



So, as with the Sumerian instance (even if we only admit it as a "multiplier") this is an example of a symbol representing something else which is hidden. As with base10 notation:

10 = "one plus nine" => ten (where 0 = 9) [NB - in other bases the zero equals one minus the base.]

Not sure I follow the logic of that line ...



The hindus themselves used various symbols, including a simple dot - as do arabic speakers (who borrowed the concept from them).

Right. Symbols are for the most part arbitrary. But there are some intriguing "coincidences" that really popped my top when I was into that mode of thinking (i.e. magical thinking).



You are right that the letter Ayin as a circle could just be a random coincidence - evenso, the form is still meaningful given the context of the discussion. Also, it may not be a random coincidence. We have no way to resolve this issue - yet the form of the letter stands, and is noted. I suppose we could argue for "synchronicity"...?

Synchronicity is just a fancy word for coincidence with the implication of the invasion of a higher order. I was really into that mode of thought for many years. I now think I was mistaken. I think it would be great to discuss the topic.



A further extrapolation of my previous line of reasoning (along an hermeneutic path) would be:

Amun = Ayin = No-Thing (hidden/invisible)
Ra = Ayin = Eye (visible)

The Ancient Egyptian conception of "Amun-Ra" would then also provide a valid link (via hermeneutics) to our discussion of "Ayin".

We'll see if it leads to something more than no-thing. :winking0071:



I take an "hermeneutic" approach. Feel free to add and remove words as you see fit - but, the underlying semantics should remain the same (they are there, even if not recognised). I'm not just stating random ideas that I have encountered. There is an inherent logic and progression to it. Hermeneutically, I apply them in all cases - only refining them when a problem is identified. You are welcome to identify specific problems. Also, it seems you have given up on metaphysics without having explored it on hermeneutical terms. Perhaps various inconsistencies have convinced you of its redundancy...? (Hermeneutically speaking, metaphysics is immune to this arbitrary approach - being considered and refined as necessary.)

Everything that can be talked about is based on hermeneutics. As is our chemistry. If I told you that your dog just died, and you believed me, your body would be involuntarily flushed with all sorts of hormones. If you knew I was mistaken nothing would happen. Such is the power of hermeneutics (interpretation).



Again, as far as I'm concerned I am not "imagining" things. These are coherent concepts. Evenso,

"Logic is imaginary. Even imagination has rules."

SMK.
Cool thought.

Great to meet you! Looks like we may have some interesting conversations.

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard

sylvius
10-21-2014, 10:26 PM
No-thing (Ayin) as the fountain of existence (3rd Person), and eye (Ayin) of sight (1st Person).

The old Phoenician letter "Ayin" was also a circle: suggesting "Zero" and an "Eye".

Thanks for your consideration,


Just that "ayin", no-thing, is written "alef-yud-nun", and "ayin", eye, fountain, the name of the 16th letter, is written "ayin-yud-nun"

zypcash
10-21-2014, 10:49 PM
Just that "ayin", no-thing, is written "alef-yud-nun", and "ayin", eye, fountain, the name of the 16th letter, is written "ayin-yud-nun"

Understood.

I am assuming a link by ignoring the difference.
The rest is self-explanitory.

I know they are different words, but I have tried to show how the concepts are related.
The reason for their similarity is then less mysterious, if you accept the link as presented.

Hope that helps to clarify things.

SMK.

David M
10-21-2014, 10:51 PM
I'm glad you are clarifying definitions. That's the root of most confusion and failed conversations.

Not to forget avoiding ambiguity.

zypcash
10-21-2014, 11:39 PM
Just that "ayin", no-thing, is written "alef-yud-nun", and "ayin", eye, fountain, the name of the 16th letter, is written "ayin-yud-nun"

Understood.

I am ignoring the difference by assuming a link.

I know they are different words, but I have tried to show how they are closely related.
If you accept the link as presented then the similarity is less mysterious.

I also noticed that in a sense the word Ayin is to a certain extent "holographic" (or fractal) since its first letter is itself:
Ayin-yud-nun = Ayin

This again highlights the previous discussion of infinite regress associated with Alef-yud-nun: Ayin.

The contention is that they can essentially be used interchangeably and retain a subtle semantic coherence.

Hope that helps to clarify.

SMK.

zypcash
10-22-2014, 12:14 AM
Not to forget avoiding ambiguity.

In this case, I think the "ambiguity" is used intentionally as a pun/play-on-words.
There are probably many other examples of similar instances in the Bible using such "literary devices".

Rather than "ambiguity", in this case, I see it as an overlap of meaning between two words - that is both understandable and enlightening. Whether or not we can agree it was intentionally placed is beside the point, since the analogy is there anyway.

Let's not be dismissive and hasty to overlook what is a profound semantic relationship between two very similar sounding words, irrespective of the author's presupposed intentions; or lack thereof.

SMK.