Complexity Anxiety

Everyday I become more and more convinced that complexity is one of the pivotal issues in our lives.

Think of the last time you gave someone directions how to get somewhere, without them writing it down. Every additional instruction is followed by additional despair in their eyes until they eventually give in. "I'll call you when I get lost." From my experience, most people handle at most 4 turns in an area they don't know before losing it. A 5th is just too much to handle.

As someone I know once told me, complexity builds itself. Take a simple concept and embellish it, and before you know it you have complexity. This applies to nature, to philosophy, mathematics, computer science, and every other human endeavor. You don't need to be a big Chochom to create complexity. This is why the Talmud is not particularly impressive to me -- take a set of starting assumptions, about a broken, conflicted document, and then try to iron out a set of laws from that document that is consistent. You'll end up (over many years) with something like the Talmud and its commentaries.

We can learn a lot about the our relationship with complexity through children. Kids live in a bubble of simplicity. They have a minimal capacity to assimilate the complexity of the world. For example, they need clearly defined 'good guys' and 'bad guys'. G-d forbid some of the 'good guys' should turn into bad guys! The very thought is inconceivable to them. The world must be as static and as simple as possible.

Every one of us still lives with that same bubble of simplicity, except some of us have expanded it more than others. Growing up, we realize that morality and the world in general is more complicated than we initially thought. And yet we struggle with life's complexity. Young adults tend to be naively idealistic about ideas precisely because they shut out the (complex) part of the world that doesn't fit in with their views. Even adults often don't accept a certain complexity of life until they experience it themselves ie. until they are forced to expand their bubble in that direction. As just one example, marriage is characterized as a noble ideal - yet when one experiences divorce C"V, one realizes the complex truth that sometimes divorce is necessary and even good.

Everywhere we turn in life we find complexity, and it scares us. The human being evolved to handle a moderate amount of complexity. We evolved with a primitive emotional system that needs simple things to latch on to, causing us to have serious biases and deficiencies in our thinking. We do have an advanced brain (relatively speaking, of course) but it is nevertheless very lacking. Not only is it extremely biased as well, it reaches its limits of complexity very rapidly.

For example, why do human beings need professions and specialization? Because the amount of complexity in most jobs is overwhelming. We can only really specialize in one thing. And how do we do this? How do we conquer complexity in our one field? By repeating the same task over and over again until we learn it. We slowly expand our circle of comprehension, often losing what we've learned along the way until we come to repeat it again.

Another limiting factor of our brain is our memory. It's built as an associative system and thus is poorly made for handling a complex world, which is better organized hierarchically. Our memory is terrible at remembering details, but it remembers stories and narratives fairly well, which is cause for yet another one of our biases - the narrative bias. We remember a juicy piece of gossip (which is understandable from an evolutionary perspective) far better than we do the periodic table, and this causes us to turn dry facts into exciting stories even if that means the stories are mostly fabricated. Think of the concept of 'based on a true story' in the movies and you'll get the idea.

I think this notion of complexity goes a long way towards explaining many phenomena in life. It explains why we tend to make sweeping generalizations. It explains a part of how we measure intelligence (really a measure of grasping complexity) and it also explains parts of religion.

People who live in times of great change are hit particularly hard by both complexity and uncertainty -- two things that scare us to no end. One of the functions of religion is to simplify the complexity of the world for us. Religion claims that it knows everything there is to know about the world. All we have to do is listen to our rabbi, follow what he tells us, and we no longer have to struggle with the complexity of life. It's during times of transition that religion seems most appealing. The anti-authority revolution of the 60s and the accelerating scientific revolution of the last several hundred years has left us with a world that is more complex and ever-shifting than ever. At the same time, we've been stripped of religion, which served as a blanket to shield us from the world's uncertainties. The Jew in Poland who had to tolerate pogroms, nevertheless had faith that his rabbi knew what he was talking about when he said that in the next world, everything would be better.

Some might counter that Judaism bombards us with more complexity than is present in the world around us, in the form of laws, commandments, Gemara and Halacha. It takes years to master this complexity, so how can one claim that Judaism makes life simpler? I think the key point here is that Judaism gives us a measured amount of complexity to deal with (Torah), and then tells us to focus almost entirely on this complexity. By stressing Torah over anything else in life, we're told that all other complexity is not really needed. Our anxiety over mastering the complexity of life is thus greatly reduced. All we need to do is to devote our life to mastering one complex field, and G-d will take care of everything else. Additionally, from the get-go, we're told we don't even need to worry about exhausting this field (Lo Aleicha Hamlacha Ligmor). We just need to make an effort.

On the other hand, I think even skeptics tend to shy away from complex positions. Many skeptics, as soon as they locate the countless holes in Judaism, throw out the entire package. This may sometimes be a reflexive avoidance of a possible complex position -- Judaism may be false, but some of its facets may have truth to them.

Cherem

Let's examine an interesting practice in Tanach -- the law of Cherem. It's a cruel law, stating that an enemy city is given as a gift to G-d. How is this done? By killing all men, women and children in the city. The gold and all the goods go to G-d (meaning to the Priests). See references here:

Bamidbar 18:14, Bamidbar 21:2-3, Devarim 13:16, Shmuel 1:15, Joshua 6:17-24, Joshua 7:1-26

G-d is so dedicated to this practice, that when Achan stole some of the gold that was supposed to go to the Priests, G-d let the Israelites' attack fail, and eventually Achan and his entire family were killed for it. so G-d REALLY LIKES his Cherem.

How could G-d possibly support this horribly immoral practice? Are you getting your kvetching hats on? Ready to pull out some kind of rationalization?

Lets try a few. Maybe G-d defines morality, so it's really not wrong?
Or maybe G-d is really elevating these barbaric people (who would otherwise just be killed since it's a Milchemet Mitzvah) and their goods? This way, their Neshama gets a boost?
Or maybe we'll go for a practical angle, that you have to fight barbaric people with severe methods. Still, that won't explain why G-d wants this practice of Cherem so badly.

Well, let's check out the Mesha Stele, as king Mesha talks about his victories against Israel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesha_Stele
(line 14) And Kemosh said to me, "Go! Sieze Nebo against Israel." so I
proceeded by night and fought with it from the crack of dawn to midday, and I took it and I slew all of them: seven thousand men and boys, and women and gi- and maidens because I had dedicated it to Ashtar Kemosh I took [the ves-]-sels of YHWH, and I dragged them before Kemosh.

Guess what word it uses to describe this practice of killing everyone, men women, children and animals. Look in the Hebrew (Phoenician really) at what it says:

כי. לעשתר. כמש. החרמתה

"I made it a Cherem to Ashtar Chemosh."

Looks like Chemosh, the Moabite god, liked his Cherem just as much as our G-d. So Cherem to your god was common practice in the area!

How could G-d possibly borrow such a horrible practice (that's meant for idol worshipping gods)? How could He then be so concerned about it, making sure the Priests get their share, and killing anyone who didn't keep up its full terms? Tzarich Iyun.



UPDATE:

First for a bit of clarification: Ir Nidachat and Amalek are both specific cases of Cherem. There appear to be 2 levels of Cherem: one in which you kill everyone, men women, children and sucklings, and keep the booty, giving it to G-d, and one in which you kill the men, women, children and sucklings, and burn the booty 'for G-d'.

Now for a source I missed: Vayikra 27:21,28-29 refers to another Cherem. It appears that not only can you 'dedicate' the enemy's souls and booty to G-d, you can also dedicate your own stuff as Cherem: your field, animal or humans. Yep, you can dedicate a human to G-d. Presumably this is talking about a slave, though perhaps in-laws are also accepted. Pasuk 29 tells us what is to be done with the dedicated human: there's no way out -- he can't be redeemed monetarily. He's simply to be killed. Yes, I said killed. Tzarich Iyun Gadol.

Starting Assumptions

People will find whatever they want to find in Torah, if they're willing to be flexible enough. This is because texts are very hard to extract firm evidence from - they're pliable, especially if, like Torah, they're messy and schematic in some areas, and verbose and repetitive in others. If you start out with the assumption that G-d wrote it no matter what, you'll find it inside (especially with Chazal's helping hand). Let's try starting with some other assumptions though:

Let's try a reading of Tanach with the assumption that god is evil. This shouldn't be too hard :) also, I think it's already been done by the Gnostics.

Creation: obviously this world was created to do evil in. While it is a bit of a Kashya that God says he saw that 'it was good', notice that this expression is outside of God ie. God is external to good, remarking about it and quite possibly not very happy about it.

Adam and Eve: Where did the snake come from? Isn't he God's creation? God has no control over snakes? Clearly this was a setup to cause them to be tempted, so God could so some punishin' (which he loves to do). The 'tree of life'... good one. And then God walks around the garden all innocent-like asking "where are you?"... please, give me a break. This one's so obvious.

Cain and Abel: Is God really angry at Cain? Doesn't seem like it. He gives him a slap on the wrist, a so-called punishment to walk the earth, and the very next thing Cain does is settle down. Clearly God wasn't really angry. He wasn't that fond of Abel, but he did like all that cow and sheep-killing, so he tolerated him for a while.

Noah: Tzaddik clearly doesn't mean what we think it means. Look, God saves him, and then all he can think of is getting drunk! But God definitely enjoyed wiping out all those people. It's almost like he set them up to do it... Especially by sending the children of God to marry the wives of men and pollute the land... hmm

Abraham: Sets up two kings for a fall by giving them his wife (pretending she's his sister - nice) so God can punish them! It's true that he wanted to save Sedom (a city of evil people - nice again), but let's remember he had to argue with God all the way. (Even though they were evil, God still wanted to do some killin')

Yitzchak: God nearly had him killed. Totally traumatized this guy. And then later on God allowed him to be duped by his own son and wife, too!

Yaakov: God's favorite, and the progenitor of the Israelites. He lies, steals, cheats and kills his way out of everything: Lavan, Esav, and Shchem to mention a few.

12 sons: Now these are the kinds of things God likes. They kidnap Joseph, pretend he's dead, ship him to Egypt. Notice God doesn't protest against any of this or even tells Yaakov what really happened to his child.

Moshe: God allows Pharoah to 'forget' what Joseph did for Egypt. Why? So the Israelites can be tortured. And then God finds that to be a compelling reason to kill and torture Egyptians too! Why else would God be 'hardening Pharoah's heart'? Let's not forget little Moishe's a killer as well!

Desert: Could it be any clearer? Taking a slave nation, allowing it to starve/die of thirst, then smiting it. It's 'almost' like God took pleasure in the complaining/smiting process.

OK you get the picture. I could go on and on, and I could bring you all sorts of literary devices to prove my point. The literal words don't matter that much, because I can always construct devices from the 'dominant word' of different chapters, or read into silences in the narrative etc.

Just for the fun of it, though, let's try a different assumption: God is really a vampire. Yep, a vampire.

Creation: OK this one's a toughy since I don't know if there's a vampire myth that vampires created the world. But maybe there is, and this one's an obvious allusion to it. Notice how we go through, creating the different animals. The sixth day represents the highest part of creation, and animals are in it. God could have fed off of animals... But that's not enough, so he created man, to have the ultimate feeding source.

Sons of God: A clear term for the race of vampires coming to human settlements and mingling in, at which point they're undetectable by humans. Their offsprings are 'heroes' - since vampires and vampire-spawn were so much stronger than average humans.

Noah: God got sick of humans and their nonsense, but he needed to preserve a food source, preferably with as much variety as possible ie. the animals.

Skipping ahead to Egypt (not that Avraham to Joseph is hard to explain of course, I could fill pages and pages with drashot about their contribution to creating the ultimate race of semi-vampires and how it's pashut in the text) notice the first plague - blood. The frogs were simply turned into crazy vampire frogs (some say they were crocodiles). Some of the plagues though were clearly not meant literally. Makat Bechorot is an easy and fun one for vampires to do.

Desert: Notice the repetitive theme of blood. Who else but a vampire could want so much blood and so many dead animals? 'The soul is in the blood...' How could God smell the sweet scent of a sacrifice unless He was a vampire? What about the law against looking at God? Clearly God doesn't want to be seen because of what he is. It's pashut in the text that God was physical when he had the big feast with the elders and Moshe at the end of Parshat Mishpatim. Also, Moshe's 'aura' -- yep, he was turned.

Once again, I think you get the picture.