Charisma as a word has been on my radar for a while precisely because I can't define it. Max Weber also argues that charisma is between the authority and the follower. That is why it is so easy to lose or get unexpectedly (and here I am wondering where the real power lies). If you look at it in the context of the New Testament, Paul connects 'charis' with the Holy Spirit. And in that sense, it's not something that a person can acquire on their own or that it's something that belongs to one person. Charisma occurs in relationship/communion. Lately I wonder whether there is anything in the Talmud that equates to this Greek 'charis', because I understand that the translators tended to equate the Hebrew word 'ruah' with the Holy Spirit. But as you say, it is something that is not related to rationality. Although I never thought about repetitiveness, but it is very possible to say that.
Beautifully put; perhaps charisma, like ruah, names a force that exceeds possession and instead passes through persons in moments of relational attunement; do you think the Talmud’s language of shekhinah, the divine presence dwelling between two who study, might be a Jewish analog to Paul’s ‘charis’?
Thank you – and perhaps indeed. To be honest, I know nothing about Talmudic idea of shekhinah but I took a quick insight. And in that sense, I do think the Talmud’s language of shekhinah can function as a Jewish analog to Paul’s charis, especially when we read ‘charis’ not as a static gift, but as a dynamic, grace-filled current that arises in communion. Of course, the two traditions work with different theological grammars, but at their deepest level, both name divine presence that is activated through encounter and disrupt the idea of divine power as a static possession and instead open space for a relational, co-created presence. Although Paul also mentions ‘charismata’ as gifts of Grace given to communion: “Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit;
and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord;
and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone.
To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” (Cor. 12:4-7) This and similar texts have led to the transformation of "charisma” in Western culture into an idea referring to the special strength or attractiveness of an individual.
Perhaps one answer to the question would be to encourage dedicated, deep, human deliberation and documentation of alternative contexts for troubling cases such as that of Billy Budd, where comprehensive investigations of many alternatives could take the form of Rabbinic discourse in the Talmud. Such exhaustive and wide-ranging deep dives could be made possible in today’s hectic legal profession by leveraging the productivity-enhancing aspects of AI, to free time otherwise spent on rule-based analyses to allow legal practitioners to spend more time on judgement/mercy muscle enhancement. Judges could/should also engage in this activity, and their views given more weight, given their experiential growth on the bench. AI could then also learn from ingesting this extended corpus and thereby establish and then strengthen its judgement/mercy muscles. AI may also engage in the discourse that expands this corpus as long as its arguments are proposed for the sake of judgement/mercy.
"How do you deal with inference? You're surveying the systems that serve probably billions or hundreds of billions, well actually hundreds of billions tokens per day as you just said with low latency. What smart approaches do you do to do this? What kind of optimizations have you looked into?”"
If we misunderstand charisma as mere eloquence, confidence, or the ability to impress, then some might see AI as charismatic. Just a thought.
how do you define charisma? I regard it as authority that cannot be reduced to rationality or repeatable process.
Charisma as a word has been on my radar for a while precisely because I can't define it. Max Weber also argues that charisma is between the authority and the follower. That is why it is so easy to lose or get unexpectedly (and here I am wondering where the real power lies). If you look at it in the context of the New Testament, Paul connects 'charis' with the Holy Spirit. And in that sense, it's not something that a person can acquire on their own or that it's something that belongs to one person. Charisma occurs in relationship/communion. Lately I wonder whether there is anything in the Talmud that equates to this Greek 'charis', because I understand that the translators tended to equate the Hebrew word 'ruah' with the Holy Spirit. But as you say, it is something that is not related to rationality. Although I never thought about repetitiveness, but it is very possible to say that.
Beautifully put; perhaps charisma, like ruah, names a force that exceeds possession and instead passes through persons in moments of relational attunement; do you think the Talmud’s language of shekhinah, the divine presence dwelling between two who study, might be a Jewish analog to Paul’s ‘charis’?
Thank you – and perhaps indeed. To be honest, I know nothing about Talmudic idea of shekhinah but I took a quick insight. And in that sense, I do think the Talmud’s language of shekhinah can function as a Jewish analog to Paul’s charis, especially when we read ‘charis’ not as a static gift, but as a dynamic, grace-filled current that arises in communion. Of course, the two traditions work with different theological grammars, but at their deepest level, both name divine presence that is activated through encounter and disrupt the idea of divine power as a static possession and instead open space for a relational, co-created presence. Although Paul also mentions ‘charismata’ as gifts of Grace given to communion: “Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit;
and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord;
and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone.
To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” (Cor. 12:4-7) This and similar texts have led to the transformation of "charisma” in Western culture into an idea referring to the special strength or attractiveness of an individual.
Perhaps one answer to the question would be to encourage dedicated, deep, human deliberation and documentation of alternative contexts for troubling cases such as that of Billy Budd, where comprehensive investigations of many alternatives could take the form of Rabbinic discourse in the Talmud. Such exhaustive and wide-ranging deep dives could be made possible in today’s hectic legal profession by leveraging the productivity-enhancing aspects of AI, to free time otherwise spent on rule-based analyses to allow legal practitioners to spend more time on judgement/mercy muscle enhancement. Judges could/should also engage in this activity, and their views given more weight, given their experiential growth on the bench. AI could then also learn from ingesting this extended corpus and thereby establish and then strengthen its judgement/mercy muscles. AI may also engage in the discourse that expands this corpus as long as its arguments are proposed for the sake of judgement/mercy.
"How do you deal with inference? You're surveying the systems that serve probably billions or hundreds of billions, well actually hundreds of billions tokens per day as you just said with low latency. What smart approaches do you do to do this? What kind of optimizations have you looked into?”"
Chilling