The opposition of "context-free" and "context-bound" types of truth results in two different models for the organization of thought and human experience. An opaque object, perceived as context-free in the World-Out-There, must be grasped visually. Opacity not only establishes the ground for ontological reality but it also determines the means by which such a reality can be apprehended: opacity is the function of visual thinking and spatial organization. The context-bound type of truth perceived in the World-Within is grasped either syntagmatically, by relating it to the context at hand, or paradigmatically, by relating it to an ideal model. The processing of such data is best modeled in terms of temporal organization and successive synthesis. The Greeks and Hebrews developed their respective cultures and way of thinking in terms of each of these models.
4. Visual and Auditory Thinking
The Hebrew and Greek types of truth correspond to two different levels of reality. The Greek truth is visual.' Therefore it is related to the spatial World-Out-There. For the Hebrews the highest form of truth is perceived at the auditory level. In Hebrew, shema 'to hear' means also 'to understand' and 'to acknowledge.' In the rabbinic expressions mai mashma' 'how do we hear this?,' shema' minnah '[you] hear from this!,' ta shema' 'come and hear,' etc., 'to hear' means 'to learn."
In Greek thought the highest expression of reality is in the realm of the visual. Greek civilization (art, religion, etc.) emphasizes the outer aspect of reality. Literature projects a world viewed in the third person, easily visualized.' The Hebrews were concerned with the auditory aspect of reality, specifically speech. The highest expression of reality is found in communicative speech. The outer aspect of things is unimportant. Neither Scripture nor the rabbis gave visual descriptions of things or people2 The few allusions to outer reality found in classical Hebrew Literature are vague and subjective, and serve to clarify a further development in the story: for example, that Sarah (Gen 12:11, 14) and Joseph (Gen 396) were beautiful. The more "objective" descriptions found in the Song of Songs, such as "your eyes are [like] well-designed pools" (Song 7:5), and "your eyes are like pigeons by a stream of water" (Song 5:12), intend to convey pathos rather than visual sensation, much like impressionist paintings. (Without knowing it, the Pizarro brothers, Modigliano, and Pascin were projecting a visual modality peculiar to their own tradition). The Hebrew aversion to iconic representation reflects concern with the visual level of expression rather than mere opposition to representational art. Verbal representation of God, even in anthropomorphic terms, is common both to Scripture and to the rabbis. What was offensive to the Hebrew was to "see" God (cf. Isa 6:5; Exod 33:18, 23); that is, to express His reality at the visual level.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
