What technology would you be better off without, why?
We’re talking hypothetically now, because the aspect in reality would take us back to the Stone Age. I’m talking about getting rid of the motor car, in fact all forms of road transport.
I know in reality that this is currently impossible for those that live in the modern countryside. Walking four miles to my nearest shop would take up a rather large chunk of my life. Those of us that work wouldn’t be able to, Social life would be almost zero. We depend on the motor car in today’s modern society.
During Covid lockdown, the roads were deserted, I was able to walk on roads that normally would see me squashed like a bug if I attempted a stroll on them. The air felt cleaner, the silence was breathtaking, the pace of life slowed down. I saw then how intrusive the motor car had become, and getting rid of it would bring about some radical changes in rural life. It would be a painful transition, villages would need more facilities, schools and shops would have to reopen. Taverns and Village Halls would become focal points again.
With no metal monsters prowling the road, the humble hedgehog might breathe a sigh of relief. Insects would no longer get splattered on car windscreens. Pheasants could strut with impunity, and deer cross a road without the risk of becoming venison.
The motor car has woven itself into our society and will be very hard to get rid of. Clever marketing and social engineering has created Frankenstein’s monster, a necessary evil. To destroy it would mean the end of our lives as we know them at present. Extreme hardship and even premature death would result. Think about it, no quick trip to hospital, no popping out for a bag of sugar or a takeaway. No visiting distant relatives. Walking everywhere. The pace of life slowing down, your perceived universe shrinking back to village life again. Your world contracting back to one which is only a days walk away.
Interesting isn’t it? How much our society depends on the motor car now, not just for transportation but to provide a living supporting it. Manufacturing, petrol stations, garages, car dealers, all these employers would vanish. Roads wouldn’t need armies of workers to repair them. Large supermarkets would disappear. Life would be hard for a generation, until we relearned old skills and adjusted our lives back to a more immediate existence.
Stop and think about it, if you dare—how much your life, especially in the countryside, would change. Would it be worth it in the long term? Would it save our dying planet? Possibly. I’d venture to say it would.
Don’t forget— it’s only a theory, a pipe-dream, it’ll never happen—will it?
Food for thought, there
Eisengesis vs. Exegesis
Exegesis, a disciplined approach focused on extracting meaning from a text through careful analysis through Oral Torah פרדס inductive reasoning. Eisengesis, on the other hand, replaces the kabbalah of פרדס inductive logic, as taught by rabbis Akiva, Yishmael, and Yosse HaGal with Plato\Aristotle 3-part syllogism deductive logic. Exegesis scholarship includes looking at cultural, historical, and linguistic contexts to uncover what the author intended to convey. Meaning, learning the T’NaCH texts viewed from the perspectives of Jewish culture, customs, and accepted practices – called minhagim. Exegesis schlarship simply crucial in Torah Constitutional studies. It promotes deeper, more accurate understandings of exactly how the Jewish people understand and interpret sacred texts.
Examples of Eisengesis: The Nicene Council which introduced with the power of established church dogma the creed of Trinity belief as “the mystery of Monotheism”, Illustrates the process of interpreting a text, specifically how the New Testament interprets the Hebrew T’NaCH, based on the interpreter’s own biases and preconceptions. Perspective: Subjective; the writings of Paul his subjective beliefs and clear ideologies. A sample of Paul’s skewed eisengesis, his declaration that circumcision ceased being a mitzva from the Torah. His declaration of JeZeus as the son of God; his substitute theology which prioritized “original sin of Adam” and replaced the Universal theme of the Torah of blessing/curse – life/death = g’lut\exile. Paul’s eisengesis requires the resurrection of JeZeus to atone for Adam’s original sin.
Approach: Reads into the text and imposes meanings that may not be supported by the text itself. Torah a Case/Law common law system. Paul’s unilateral declaration that “Goyim are not under the Law”. Paul’s unilateral declaration that “Goyim are not under the Law”; an absurd declaration because Goyim universally rejected the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Therefore of course ‘Goyim not under the Law’? So why make this obvious declaration when Goyim never accepted Torah common law. Answer: Paul substituted the dominant Roman statute law for Jewish common law. Goyim only knew Statute law. Therefore they simply and falsely assumed that “not under the law” referred to the statute law with which they were intimately familiar.
This distinction highlights how cultural and legal backgrounds shape understanding of T’NaCH Constitutional texts understood as biblical religious texts. The conversion from Jewish common law to Roman statute law reflects the complexities in early Christian thought regarding “the Law”; it implies that belief in JeZeus grafted them into the Chosen Cohen People. An utterly false idea. Paul rejected keeping the commandments; circumcision, kashrut, tohor & tuma etc. These key central concepts of T’NaCH Constitutional common law became totally alien to Xtian beliefs and their Av tuma avoda zarah religion.
In particular, the propaganda of Paul completely subsumed and ignored the key Torah theme that HaShem brought Israel out of Egyptian slavery to bring them in to conquer the lands of Canaan as sworn unto the Avot as the eternal Cohen people inheritance lands. This substitute theology post the JeZeus false messiah theology impacted Goyim to prioritize being saved by the blood of the lamb rather than conquer and rule the oath sworn lands with righteous judicial common law justice which dedicates to make fair restitution of damages. The First commandment of Sinai the New Testament totally negates. Goyim by definition live in lands outside of Israel. Whereas Moshe brought Israel out of Egypt to rule Canaan.
Outcome. The introduction of the “New Testament” imposed an immediate void upon the Hebrew T’NaCH, now labeled as “Old Testament”. That Xtian religion share more in common with Muslim strict Monotheism than the T’NaCH local God linked directly to the oath sworn lands; the God of the chosen Cohen People. The NT totally obliviates the concept of the chosen Cohen People, replaced by believers in JeZeus being saved from burning for eternity in Hell. The T’NaCH concept of “the devil” metaphor (משל\נמשל) inference דיוק logic of reading T’NaCH texts refers to the Yatzir Ha’Raw within the heart. Not to some imaginary king of Demons who got expelled from Heaven following a failed rebellion against God.
Applications: Blood libels, ghetto gulag imprisonment for 3 Centuries duration till the French revolutionaries & Napoleon expelled the Catholic church from its co-rulership of the French monarchy; the American revolution separated Church from State. Church dogmatism declared Jews as cursed and the spawn of the devil; condemned to walk the face of the earth as despised refugees. This theological narishkeit culminated in the Shoah where Nietzsche declared prior to WWII that God was dead.