if Trotsky had been aware of the future, he would never have advocated Marxism.

 if Trotsky had been aware of the future, he would never have advocated Marxism.  His concern was towards the working class. If he had known the fact that to get a loaf of bread one needed to get up at 4:00 A.M.  in the wee hours of the morning to go stand in a line that went half way around the block, he would have dropped his theory and replaced it with capitalism--a theory that results in plenty for the people that in fact work. [His concern was not towards welfare recipients. He would rather have been concerned about the people that were actually working. [You can see this in his writings that all hinge on the concept-that the workers are good and the parasites like welfare collectors are evil.]

And why would taking from bankers and other wealthy people be right? The whole idea of redistribution   is based on movies that portray rich people as having stolen from the poor. But movies are not evidence. Other that that why should there be a prima facie assumption that the reason anyone who has more than another is because they stole it? 

The unity there is in positive transcendence, which is value, where, again, the unity is among things in themselves. What makes this significant is that this seems to show a deep source of faith

 In Kant there is this separation between things and what we can know about them. In the Kant-Fries school it is held that even though there are limits to ''analytic knowledge'' which can be known by manipulating definitions, and empirical knowledge;--still there is a third source of knowledge which is not by pure reason nor by sense perception. Not faith as understood as a third kind of extrasensory perception. So what is reality? 

My  question to Dr Kelley Ross was about this issue. His answer: One idea is that the nature of value is a unity among things in themselves, but is split up by the kaleidoscope of phenomenal reality.  Dilemmas become possible.  The division between mind and body is more like that between internal and external negative transcendence.  The unity there is in positive transcendence, which is value, where, again, the unity is among things in themselves.

What makes this significant is that  this seems to show a deep source of faith

z16 music file

 z16 B Minor  z16 midi   z16 nwc

Rav Avraham Abulafia of the Middle Ages

 You might ask why do I pay attention to Rav Avraham Abulafia of the Middle Ages in terms of sensitive subjects. Faith in the wise is one of the most important principles by which the Torah is acquired.  The only thing is one needs a certain degree of sense to be able to discern who really is wise and who is faking it.

In fact this is one of the problems of very smart people. They tend to not know their limits.. In the Midrash its says that the mother of Samuel the prophet prayed that her son should not be overly smart nor dumb.

There are more parasites in the seas than in the past.

 There are more parasites in the seas than in the past. The salmon and other species suffer. These sorts of worms that dig into the skin of fish do the same with humans.  The solution? These parasites do not like to be squeezed.  Nor do they like alcohol, nor bicarbonate. I have no heard of people having this sort of problem but I assume that it just has not become public knowledge. So if one does see the something has burrowed under his skin, the thing to do is to squeeze it and apply alcohol or bicarbonate. You can mix the bicarbonate with tooth paste to make it stick. 

spacecraft-in-a-warp-bubble-could-travel-faster-than-light-claims-physicist/

https://physicsworld.com/a/spacecraft-in-a-warp-bubble-could-travel-faster-than-light-claims-physicist/

This becomes even more interesting if you take into account that there are lots of ER bridges around. In a paper by Susskind, it is suggested that ER bridges are what connects entangled atoms one to another.

way of learning - from the beginning to end, and end to beginning, and from the middle and outwards.

 When I was in high school, there was a physics student that told me his way of learning. It was from the beginning to end and end to beginning and from the middle and outwards.

I have found that helpful for me in terms of method of review. I get to some place in the text where it seems to me that that I need to start review. So instead of going to the very beginning, I simply start going back page by page from where I am holding.  But I keep the place where I left off by some kind of place marker so that when I get to the beginning I can pick up again at that place.

Not speaking lashon hara/slander. But the equal importance of warning the public

 I can see the importance of not speaking lashon hara/slander but I think that this emphasis tends to diminish the equal importance of warning the public or individuals about dangerous friends or groups. There must be many more sources for this but the two that I recall off hand are Kamtza and Bar Kamtza by which the Second Temple was destroyed. Not so much for some individual transgression but the fact that no one objected. Also the events surrounding the concubine at Giva. It is not at all that some people in that one city had killed the concubine, but rather that no one in that city nor in the entire tribe of Binyamin objected.

See sefer hamidot [of Rav Nahman] the section on embarrassment. he brings there a statement from the sages that it is permissible to embarrass the religious authorities that make money off of the Torah [and what religious authorities don't?], and one must not stand before them, and the clothing they wear is like a saddle on a donkey. So we see that sometimes one must object. Certainly the Gra and Rav Shach objected to great evil, even though it is clear that no one paid any attention to what they were saying until this very day.

There is a lot of tension between the Schools based on Kant and those based on Hegel.

I see philosophy as a sort of orchestra conductor. That is one who is making all the separate aspects of the orchestra /reality to be one unified whole. So the Mind Body problem has been an issue since Descartes.

But 20th century philosophy is not a very good conductor. Especially when philosophy ventures into politics. The results are dismal. 

So I would like to recommend the Kant Fries approach of Leonard Nelson. However that is not to deny the value and important points of all the thinkers after Kant up until Hegel. [There is a lot of tension between the Schools based on Kant and those based on Hegel. And I wish I could decide which is right. But I can not. Each has good points. In fact one of the major objections to Hegel is the sorts of Marxist ideas that perverted his approach. Abusus non tollit usum."Abuse dos not kill use"

The "work book"

 The oddest sort of thing which pops up every time I take a look at the Russian Revolution is that the impression that people have of it being all about everyone getting an equal amount of stuff was not at all what it was about. It was about the industrial workers. And when they took power on Oct 24-25 that is what they in fact enforced. The "work book". If people did not have a continuous set of entries they went to jail. They did not receive "welfare". [The "soviets" were the elected representatives of the workers in the city. This was against the "zemstvos" --the elected representatives of the villages.]

There have been plenty of attempted takeovers of the USA by internal enemies that are welfare-takers. And they claim communism for their model. But what they are asking for is to be the masters, and the white people the slaves. They are not actually asking for communism.

And in fact I agree with the idea of work. That is to say I do not think that Torah ought to be a means to make a living. However that does not negate the idea of sitting and learning Torah. But that I think is a matter of trust in God. When one trusts in God, then I believe that often God provides. [Depending on how sincere the trust is.] But to sit and learn and extort money from the State seems to me to be not the Torah way.

Often one finds in kollels that they feel they deserve to get paid for learning Torah. I have never been able to digest that idea.

To me the idea of kollels and even religious leaders getting paid seems ridiculous. Trust in God I understand. But using Torah as a means to make money seems extremely offense to me.

And furthermore- I do not see any devotion to Torah in it. The whole religious business seems like a sneaky way trick. They pretend to not be using Torah to make money while that is exactly what they are doing. 

Since it is clear that using Torah to make money is forbidden, why not simply stop it in its tracks--once and for all?

Women and blacks against white men

 Many white men are accused by women of sin. The issue is addressed in the Gemara in Gitin pg 7.An amora was asked: "I can call the authorities against someone who is going around and slandering me, What should I do? Answer, ''Be silent and wait upon God.'' Thus, we see calling the police on people is not good. Blacks and women bring false accusations against white men as a matter of gaining credit for themselves.  Though they will not gain from this, still it is necessary to object. [As we see in the events of the concubine of Giva, and Bar Kamtza in Gitin. In these places we see that to object to evil is an obligation.] 

I can imagine that women that bring this endless stream of false accusations against men have not learned the laws of slander.

[But I know the general public does not know the laws of slander. So let me state some general principles.

Slander is speaking negatively [even if true] on anyone except with certain conditions. The conditions are   slightly different for sins between man and his fellow man and sins between man and God. For sins between man and fellow man to see it yourself, to rebuke beforehand, to judge the act according to the Law [Torah], to intend benefit not just to harm someone, that the benefit can not be gained in any other way. that worse punishment will not result that if he would be judged in a court that would go judge according to the Law (Torah.) 

The Gemara in Gitin pg 7 says how do we know that song is forbidden?

 The Gemara in Gitin pg 7 says how do we know that song is forbidden? It answers from one  verse. Then asks "Why not bring from another verse?" Answer: "From there we might think only by instruments is forbidden. How would we know that even by voice is forbidden? From the first verse." To Rashi Tosphot and Rav Yeshayah from Trani this means song in bars [drinking bars]. But to the Rambam all song in forbidden except songs of praise to God. But we see also in the Gemara that making songs out of verses is also forbidden. [See the Gemara where you see that making songs of any verses is forbidden not just the book of Song of Songs.]For this reason Sephardim had lots of Pizmonim [songs in their sidur in order not to be using verses of psalms to be making into songs.

The songs with verses however is worse. That is as the Gemara says about using verses as words for songs "They have made me a song to them." And this does not apply to Shir HaShirim alone but to any use of any verse to make a song. However there is a Gemara Yerushalmi הכל חולים לגבי שיר אפילן אישה זקנה Everyone is sick when they lack song, even an old woman. But not that is is a mitzvah.

So why do I write music then? Because I am sick. Betrayed by everyone I trusted. The religious world in particular. that I thought were righteous. My soul is sick from the fact that I wanted so much to learn Torah but was expelled from every single yeshiva that I wanted simply to sit and learn in. I would just walking and start trying to learn Torah and told to leave. But surprise was that there were the same places that were begging secular Jews to give them money because they had an open door policy for anyone that wanted to learn Torah. I found the opposite to be true. They were using the name of Torah to make money and try to gain power. The "Frum world" I found to be the exact opposite of authentic Torah. That just this, but in an astounding way, they did tremendous efforts to cause a divorce between me and my wife and later to rape my children. So the frum religious world I found to be anti-Torah.Opposed to true Torah Values. 

There is a kind of ambiguity in politics and philosophy that Kant was trying to solve.

 There is a kind of ambiguity in politics and philosophy that Kant was trying to solve. The idea was to eliminate speculation outside the areas of possibility of experience [not possible experience]. But that does suggest an intersection with politics. We might not know what is true justice? But what ever true justice is, is certainly not outside the area of possibility of experience. The answer of Kant has seemed weak since the first review by a critique on Kant by Schultz, his closest ally. I do not see how any other answer besides Fries is possible, That knowledge is not just from sensible perception or from reason, rather from a sort of core knowledge of immediate nonintuitive knowledge. [Fries and Beneke are thought to be of the empirical Kant first. But if you look at the friesian.com you will see that Fries and Nelson were non-intuitive immediate knowledge first.] But as close to faith his seems, it is not faith--not a sort of knowledge based on extrasensory perception. Rather a source of knowledge that is not based on any kind of feeling or reason.

In the world of politics, the answers of philosophy have been incoherent. Ideas from Kant, do not appear to have brought any kind of clarity. It seems to me that there was a kind of flow from above of philosophy from the period starting from Kant to Hegel. But ideas about politics seem to have been focused into the founding fathers of the USA. So In fact Hegel saw the USA as the State of the Future.

Modern morality the opposite of the morality of the Bible.

 ''Sit underneath your place on the Sabbath day.''[Exodus the parsha of the Mann] שבו תחתיו ביום השבת.Rav Nahman explains this thus: that a person should thinks of himself as lower than his level. Even if he know his level, he should consider himself as less that than.[ LeM vol. I chapter 31]. I have found this advice useful in terms of learning. Instead of thinking I will understand everything perfectly, I rather imagine that in fact I will not understand, but that simply go on in the subject I am learning--whether in Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot Maharsha or Physics, and thus eventually in fact come to understand.

Pride is given too large a place in modern society. This is the opposite of Torah thought in which it is thought to be the worst possible sin to think of oneself as greater that he really is. The sin of Pride.

Modern morality the opposite of the morality of the Bible. [Modern morality is the morality of Satan,] Self Esteem is thought to be the greatest thing. In the Torah, it is considered the gravest of all sins, and that leads one to the bottom of hell.

The Kant Fries school however holds like Schopenhauer that reality itself is irrational. --or beyond reason.

Dr Kelley Ross mentions in his PhD thesis [see https://www.friesian.com/]that there is a sort of ambiguity what is it that the categories are meant to unite, just conceptions  or also perceptions.["A fundamental ambiguity in Kant concerns just what it is that synthesis generates, a structured set of concepts describing the world or our immediate perceptions."] If it would be just conceptions then everything would be OK. But how can they unite perceptions? Well Kant notices this problem himself and claims that because of this problem it must be that perceptions themselves are themselves rational. Structured by reason. [That surely sounds like the exact point of Hegel.]  But Dr. Ross takes a different approach and claims that because of this very sort of problem--that sensations and conceptions are so different there must be  a deeper source of knowledge that both are just two sides of the same coin. [You can also see this as almost implicit in Kant himself if you think of the categories are being like the computer chips that process the incoming information and signals. Then the natural question to ask is, "Who is the user?" The answer: the soul.] 

The Kant Fries school however holds like Schopenhauer that reality itself is irrational. --or beyond reason.

Kelly Ross has a sort of chart. He shows things of value go up from all form with no content ;ike Logic which is formal in that its forms do not  have any content.  If A implies B and B implies C then A implies C. A, B and C have no content. Then he goes up to an area which can not be reduced to pure logic like Mathematics as we know from Godel. So math has more content but less form. numbers have reality. This is the old argument if universals exist. Well it seems that trees exist. Not the concept of trees but actual trees. Michael Huemer brings some proofs of this. One that I recall off hand is that  yellow is a color. Many things have it. So universals exist.

Music and art have more of what is called numinous content. Some sort of value that can not be reduced to a computer program--as we know from the many that have tried to do this with Bach.

Values that involve holiness even more so have less form than that, and even more content. If you continue the progression you would get to God who has no form.

[I should add that the Kant _Fries school is not "psychologism" as Kelley Ross takes some time and effort to point out.]

music file z15

 z15 F sharp minor  z15 midi   z15 nwc

My parents were loyal Americans and believed deeply in the American system of government and my dad spent most of his life supporting the American way of life

 My parents were loyal Americans and believed deeply in the American system of government and my dad spent most of his life supporting the American way of life one way or other. First by volunteering for the United States Air Force at the start of WWII. Then excelling in that service for which he gained medals of honor. [Some of which He did not tell me about  and others he revealed what they were for. One was for the setting up  of a Air Base in France which airplanes that were disabled could come in and be repaired in short order.] Later he contributed to the USA by his work on the U-2 project. He created one of the cameras used by the U-2. Also by inventing the first InfraRed telescope. Then work on laser communication between satellites for Star Wars SDA. In short my parents believed in the American way.

So when I see people like Trotsky, I wonder why the option of the American way did not occur to him as a better way to attain a just system of government?

The answer I have is that the situation was different. It was not a matter of choosing between czarism and capitalism.  Rather it seems to him and millions of Russians that the issue was how to throw off the yoke of the czars.

What this means for today is that, in fact, it would make much sense to look at the Constitution of the USA to see what a just system of government would be like.   Sadly this does not  seem to hold in the USA where the Constitution is nowadays ignored.   

Still, a lot depends n the sort of people the system is meant to govern.

If you think all menial workers are saints and all factory owners are demons that is going to result in a different sort of system than if one thinks that human beings across the board contain a evil inclination --even if they are workers, or black or female.

The shear number of people in the USA that hate the Co Constitution of the USA would have seemed as as terrible people. 

Deterministic Quantum Mechanics: the Mathematical Equations Gerard t Hooft

 Deterministic Quantum Mechanics: the Mathematical Equations Gerard t Hooft

He finds classical QM by means of fast variables instead of hidden variables.

 On one hand it seems like a great philosophical idea. The fulfillment of Einstein's idea that QM is a mathematical device, but not a theory of what is going on inside of stuff.

On the other hand, physics is about black holes and tons of other stuff in such away that at least in physics, it is not thought to be earth shaking or to matter much to what is going on today. 

There are tests of this theory as d' Hooft has noticed.

I think d Hooft's Deterministic Quantum Mechanics really is from String Theory where these fast vibrations can be seen.

Gemara in Avoda Zara 23 side b. Tosphot Rosh Hahanah 13 side a.

Tosphot Rosh Hahanah 13 side a. Gemara in Avoda Zara 23 side b. The Gemara in Avoda Zara asks why were Israel commanded to burn the Asherot? After all the land belonged to Avraham and אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו no one can make forbidden that which does not belong to him. Answer: Israel served the Golden Calf so doing idolatry was OK to them. For if it had been the trees from the previous generations that would have been enough to nullify them, not burn them. Tosphot brings up the point that even though the land belonged to Avraham, the Canaanites were not thieves. They had permission to plant trees. And the trees they planted were owned by them. But when the Gemara in Avoda Zara asks its question, it is referring to the asherot from the previous generations.  So let me try to figure out this Gemara in AZ [Avoda Zara]. I guess it must be talking about trees that were in the land of Canaan before it was given to Avraham. And then the land with the trees were given to Avraham. If so the question of the Gemara makes sense. The trees belonged to Avraham and so even if the Canaanites worshipped them, they could not make them forbidden. Then look at the answer: since Israel worshipped the Calf, therefore idolatry was OK to them. That does not answer the question since an ashera has to be planted as an ashera. It can not be a regular tree that was planted for fruit and then worshipped. [That is from the Gemara itself and brought in the Rambam. Avoda Zara perek 8.] So those trees would not have been forbidden even if idolatry was ok to Israel. So let's say the question refers to asherot that were in the land at the time of Avraham, and then given to Avraham. So now they are asherot of a Israel which are required to be burned. That would be great if that was the answer of the Gemara, but the question nor the answer refer to them. So lets say the question of the gemara refers to trees [or even asherot] that were planted after the land was given to Avraham. Well, then they belong to the Canaanites outright and so the question of the Gemara makes not sense. They can cause to be forbidden that which belongs to them. Possible answer: the Gemara might be thinking since the land belongs to Avraham so the trees do also [that were planted after it was given to him]. Maybe the Gemara is thinking that regular trees also can be made forbidden by being worshipped? 

________________________________________________________________________

תוספות ראש השנה י''ג ע''א. גמרא עבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב. The גמרא in עבודה זרה  asks why were Israel commanded to burn the אשרות? After all the land belonged to Avraham and אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו no one can make forbidden that which does not belong to him. Answer: Israel served the Golden Calf so doing idolatry was OK to them. For if it had been the trees from the previous generations that would have been enough to nullify them, not burn them. תוספות brings up the point that even though the land belonged to Avraham, the Canaanites were not thieves. They had permission to plant trees. And the trees they planted were owned by them. But when the גמרא in עבודה זרה asks its question, it is referring to the אשרות from the previous generations.  So let me try to figure out this גמרא in עבודה זרה . I guess it must be talking about trees that were in the land of Canaan before it was given to Avraham. And then the land with the trees were given to Avraham. If so the question of the גמרא makes sense. The trees belonged to Avraham and so even if the Canaanites worshipped them, they could not make them forbidden. Then look at the answer: since Israel worshipped the Calf, therefore idolatry was OK to them. That does not answer the question since an אשרה has to be planted as an אשרה. It can not be a regular tree that was planted for fruit and then worshipped. That is from the גמרא itself and brought in the רמב''ם הלכות עבודה זרה פרק ח. So those trees would not have been forbidden even if idolatry was ok to Israel. So let's say the question refers to אשרות that were in the land at the time of Avraham, and then given to Avraham. So now they are אשרות of a Israel which are required to be burned. That would be great if that was the answer of the גמרא, but the answer does not refer to them. [Rather the answer is about trees that were forbidden because Israel served idols. Not to tree that were already asherot and then owned by avraham which already required burning] So lets say the question of the גמרא refers to trees or even אשרות that were planted after the land was given to Avraham. Well, then they belong to the Canaanites outright and so the question of the גמרא makes not sense. They can cause to be forbidden that which belongs to them. Possible answer: the גמרא might be thinking since the land belongs to Avraham so the trees do also [that were planted after it was given to him]. Maybe the גמרא is thinking that regular trees also can be made forbidden by being worshipped? 

תוספות ראש השנה י''ג ע''א. גמרא עבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב. הגמרא בעבודה זרה שואלת מדוע נצטוו ישראל לשרוף את האשרות? אחרי הכל, האדמות היו של אברהם ואין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו [אף אחד לא יכול לעשות אסור את מה שלא שייך לו]. תשובה: ישראל שימשה את עגל הזהב ולכן עבודת אלילים הייתה בסדר מבחינתם. כי אם היו העצים מהדורות הקודמים היו מספיקים לבטלם, ולא לשרוף אותם. תוספות מעלה את הנקודה שלמרות שהאדמה הייתה של אברהם, הכנענים לא היו גנבים. היה להם אישור לשתול עצים. והעצים ששתלו היו בבעלותם. אך כאשר הגמרא בעבודה זרה שואלת את שאלתה, היא מתייחסת לאשרות מהדורות הקודמים. אז תן לי לנסות להבין את הגמרא הזו בעבודה זרה. אני מניח שזה בוודאי מדבר על עצים שהיו בארץ כנען לפני שניתן לאברהם. ואז האדמה עם העצים ניתנה לאברהם. אם כן שאלת הגמרא הגיונית. העצים היו של אברהם ולכן גם אם הכנענים סגדו להם, הם לא יכלו להפוך אותם לאסורים. ואז התבונן בתשובה: מכיוון שישראל סגדו לעגל, לכן עבודת אלילים הייתה בסדר מבחינתם. זה לא עונה על השאלה מכיוון שיש לנטוע אשרה כאשרה. זה לא יכול להיות עץ רגיל שנשתל לפירות ואז סגדו אותו. זה מהגמרא עצמה והביא את הרמב''ם הלכות עבודה זרה פרק ח. כך שהעצים האלה לא היו אסורים גם אם עבודת אלילים הייתה בסדר לישראל. אז בואו נגיד השאלה מתייחסת לאשרות שהיו בארץ בזמן אברהם, ואז ניתנה לאברהם. אז עכשיו הם אשרות של ישראל ונדרשים להישרף. זה יהיה נהדר אם זו הייתה התשובה של הגמרא, אך התשובה אינה מתייחסת אליהם. [אדרבה התשובה היא על עצים שהיו אסורים מכיוון שישראל שימשה אלילים. לא לעץ שהיה כבר אשרה ואז היה בבעלותו של אברהם שכבר נדרש לשרוף]. אז נניח ששאלת הגמרא מתייחסת לעצים או אפילו אשרות שנטעו לאחר שהאדמה ניתנה לאברהם. ובכן, אז הם שייכים לכנענים על הסף ולכן שאלת הגמרא אינה הגיונית. הם יכולים לגרום לאסור את מה ששייך להם. תשובה אפשרית: הגמרא חושבת מכיוון שהאדמה שייכת לאברהם כך שגם העצים [שנטעו לאחר שניתנה לו]. אולי הגמרא חושבת שאפשר לאסור עצים רגילים על ידי סגידה?

The signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication

The signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication is generally ignored and because of that the Dark Side has taken over most of the religious world. [There are exceptions like the great Litvak yeshivas that are devoted to straight Torah, -- but outside of them I fear the religious world is dark and ugly-- and highly immoral.] 

[The problem is that  if you look at Kelley Ross's Kant Fries school you will see there is a hierarchy of areas of value. 

From that I think it is possible to see that the major test of a person  is to separate the good from the evil in whatever area of value his or her abilities lie in.] So the test of the religions area of value is if one is willing to accept the insight of the Gra. The signature of the Gra is what separates good from evil. But it is not  an area that is impossible to discern. Rather--reason can discern where is the truth. All one needs is a bit of common sense. I.e. reason has the ability to discern between good and evil. [As Huemer goes into in his paper on Ayn Rand.]

The great aspect of the Litvaks is the basic faithfulness to authentic Torah.

The great aspect of the Litvaks is the basic faithfulness to authentic Torah. Yet what is the idea of "kollel". To support people for learning Torah "lishma"--for its own sake and not for money. And in fact if people would be learning Torah for the sake of money or power that takes away any value in what they are doing. So it comes out we are supporting people that learn Torah not for the sake of money by giving them money.

[My impression of the religious world is that in fact it is all about money. But I might give to individuals that I sense that they are true Torah scholars and are learning Torah for its own sake.]    

 

between Hegel and Leonard Nelson.

 To me it seems the most important issue to straighten out is between Hegel and Leonard Nelson. That last is known as the Friesian school. It is completely ignored in the West, but was well known in the USSR.

The issues between these schools of thought are many about Kant's dinge an sich. Things in themselves isolated from all characteristics, [known by dialect, or by immediate non intuitive knowledge, or by straight reason according to the intuitionists like Huemer, G.E. Moore and Prichard.

It looks like the same sort of argument that existed between Plato and Aristotle until Plotinus made Neoplatonism philosophy based on Plato, but incorporated elements of Aristotle. 

[The issues between these two schools seem great to them, but the areas of agreement are much more that the strange areas where philosophy drifted into afterwards.  It seems that there is great value and insight in the Kant Friesian school but that should not be a reason to cancel Hegel or Prichard. What it looks like to me is  is the "soul" The deeper level where  intuitive [sense perception] and a priori knowledge originate. That is implied by Kelley Ross. I once wrote to him asking about this kind of question -that immediate non intuitive knowledge refers to a level of existence that is in the physical world and yet also refers to some level of reason--an end of the regress of reason. And his answer was that these two levels in their origin are one. That seems to refer to the soul. The "soul" seems  to be one area that philosophy has skipped in some sense except the Friesian school. 

But after one would come to this level, the questions still remain how to distinguish between area of good and evil- for every area of value seems to have  an opposite area of value that mimics the authentic area of value.

z13 music file

 z13 C Minor

a difficult Rambam [Laws of Idolatry 8:3]

 I have been thinking about a difficult Rambam. He writes: One who stands up a brick and an idolater comes along and bows down to it, it is forbidden because the act of making it stand up is considered an act." [Laws of Idolatry 8:3]. The very difficult thing to understand here is that the brick is man made. So there needs to be no act besides that fact in order that it should be forbidden. Rav Shach askes this question and answers it in a certain way. He says those last words about it being an act is a mistake and should have been places after the later law about the same scenario except it is referring to an egg. And there you can see that the setting the egg would have to be considered an act for it is not man made. However I am still wondering if there is some way to leave the law as it stands.  For the Gemara itself compares the case of the egg with the case of the brick. That is it asks if one sets up an egg and an idolater comes along and bows down to it is it forbidden like the brick of perhaps it is not an act that is able to be seen, so the fact that the person setting it up might have been in agreement that it should be worshipped but that intension is not clear since the egg looks the same whether it is set up or not. But what I noticed here is this question. What is the connection between the egg and the brick? If the brick is forbidden it is because it is man made and the owner acquiesces that it should be worshipped. The egg would be forbidden because the setting it is an act. So you see even so there is some reason the Gemara equates these two cases. [The Gemara is Avoda Zara 46 side A. Hezkia asked if one stands up an egg and bows down to it--is it forbidden? The Gemara says the meaning is the Israeli sets its it up and a idolater bows. The Gemara asked maybe it is just a brick where it is seen and visible that the Israeli intends it to be worshipped but perhaps an egg--not. The Rambam  [as opposed to Rashi] says that even for the brick we see is it enough not that it is manmade, but also you need  an act that shows his wanting the object to be worshipped. So this might be the reason the Rambam writes this reason on the brick not on the egg since in both cases you need an act. The only question of the Gemara is if you also need a visible act which the conclusion is that you do not. Otherwise the egg would be permitted.

In any case this would disagree with the sugia in avoda zara page 23 about why the asherot [trees that were worshipped by the Canaanites would have to have been burned]. They had been planted regularly [before the land was given to Avraham] and then worshiped [after it was given to Avraham] and then worshiped, but no act was done like here to set them up to be worshiped.

__________________________________________________________________________________

 ֱחשבתי על רמב''ם קשה. הוא כותב: מי שמעמיד לבנה, ועובד אלילים בא ומשתחווה אליו, זו אסורה מכיוון שפעולת העמדה נחשבת כמעשה. [הלכות עבודה זרה פרק ח' הלכה ג']. הדבר הקשה להבין כאן הוא שהלבנה היא מעשה ידי אדם. לכן בהשקפה ראשונה לא צריך להיות שום פעולה מלבד עבודה זו כדי שזו תהיה אסורה. רב שך שואל את השאלה הזו ועונה עליה שאת המילים האחרונות האלה על " זה מעשה" זו טעות והיו צריכים להיות מקומן אחרי המשפט המאוחר יותר לגבי אותו תרחיש, אלא שהוא מתייחס לביצה. ושם אתה יכול לראות שההגדרה שהביצה תצטרך להיחשב כמעשה כי היא לא על ידי אדם עשוי. עם זאת אני עדיין תוהה אם יש איזושהי דרך להשאיר את החוק כפי שהוא. הגמרא עצמה משווה את המקרה של הביצה למקרה של הלבנה. כלומר היא שואלת אם מקימים ביצה ועובד אלילים בא ומתכופף אליו זו אסורה כמו הלבנה או אולי זה לא מעשה שמסוגל לראות, ולכן העובדה שהאדם שהקים אותה אולי היה מסכים שיש לסגוד לה, אך הכוונה הזו אינה ברורה מכיוון שהביצה נראית זהה בין אם היא עומדת בצד הזה או השני. אבל מה ששמתי לב כאן זו השאלה הזו. מה הקשר בין הביצה ללבנה? אם הלבנה אסורה, זה בגלל שנעשה על ידי האדם והבעלים מסכימים לסגוד לה. הביצה תהיה אסורה משום שההגדרה היא מעשה. אז אתה רואה למרות זאת יש סיבה כלשהי שהגמרא משווה את שני המקרים האלה. [גמרא עבודה זרה 46 צד א' "חזקיה שאל אם אחד העמיד ביצה ומשתחווה אליה, האם זו אסורה. הגמרא אומרת שהכוונה היא שהישראלי מכין את זו לשם עבודת אלילים. הגמרא שאלה אולי זו רק לבנה שבה נראה ונראה שהישראלי מתכוון לסגוד לה, אבל אולי ביצה - לא. הרמב''ם בניגוד לרש''י אומר שגם עבור הלבנים שאנו רואים זה לא מספיק שזה מעשה ידי אדם, אלא גם אתה זקוק למעשה שממנו נראה של רצונו לעבודה זרה. זו עשויה להיות הסיבה שהרמב"ם כותב את הסיבה הזו על הלבנה ולא על ביצה שכן בשני המקרים אתה זקוק למעשה. השאלה היחידה של הגמרא היא אם אתה צריך גם מעשה גלוי. המסקנה היא שאתה לא צריך. אחרת הביצה תהיה מותרת.

In the world of Litvak yeshivas it is commonly accepted that the morning hours are for in depth study, and the afternoon for fast study.

 I was in the Na Nach Breslov place yesterday, and they were learning the LeM vol I:74.

It must be obvious that there is a sort of tension between that Torah lesson and Conversation 76 in the Conversations: of Rav Nahman. [Plus in Sefer HaMidot מי שלומד ואינו חוזר הוא כמו מי שזורע ואינו קוצר

The emphasis in Conversation 76 is to say the words as fast as possible until one finishes the book, and then reviews it four times.

In the LeM I:74 the emphasis is on understanding. דיבור בדעה הוא בחינת יעקב.

 In the world of Litvak yeshivas it is commonly accepted that the morning hours are for in depth study and the afternoon for fast study. That sort of compromise makes the most sense to me  and it seems to work for me whether in Gemara study or Physics and Math. To divide one's time. Half in depth and half fast study. [My son IZHAK emphasized learning in depth, but also recognized the greatness and importance of the ideas of Rav Nachman -which includes learning fast.]

there does seem to be a tendency in Islam to encourage violence.

 There seems to be a certain amount of bombs falling outside. I guess the Muslims are upset. My feeling about this is this. What does a Jew do when he wants to serve God? [I mean he wants to do the highest service] He learns Torah. A Christian who wants to serve God decides to build a hospital or school,- or some other act of kindness. A Muslim who wants to serve God goes on a jihad mission. The reason is that the highest service he can do is holy war. [At least that is the simple sense of the verses. There are scholars who say jihad is not war in the normal sense but rather the eternal struggle to improve oneself.] [That might be true but still I think many Muslims take the meaning to be as it seems at first glance. 

So I would say that there does seem to be a tendency in Islam to encourage violence.

finding a spouse

The major work of  Rav Nahman of Breslov, the LeM I have heard is good for the particular issues that are raised in any one given chapter.  And in fact I found this idea helpful. I had seen that vol. I chapter 6 which deals with the intensions of Elul is good to learn in order to find one's proper mate. And in fact I was having a great deal of trouble in that area until one day I decided I was just going to say that Torah lesson every single day until I would find my true mate. And that in fact worked. [There is also another Torah lesson in the LeM vol. II chapter 87 that also deals with this issue. I said that also along with the paragraphs of the princes in Numbers and the Song on the Rea Sea.] [These last two are also mention by Rav Nahman in Sefer HaMidot as being good for this issue.]

If I had raised my expectations too high even that might not have helped. Sometimes when it comes to finding a spouse people are looking for something that has never been created. The Perfect Human Being.

Women often say Lashon Hara about their ex-husbands or fathers

 Most of the Lashon Hara [slander] that women say about their ex husbands or fathers does not have any of the usual kinds of permission one might have when saying something negative about someone else. I mean to say- that there is such a permission as you see in the Hafez Haim concerning lashon hara about issues between man and his fellow man. [There are seven conditions.] There also is a shorter list of conditions when the issue is between man and God.  The conditions: To speak to the person first to rebuke him. To see it oneself. Not hearsay.  To intend some benefit;-- for instance to warn others.  The benefit can not be gained in any other way.  Not to exaggerate. To be clear that what one is saying is in fact forbidden according to Torah law.  A result of the lashon hara can not be more than if the case was tried in an actual court that judges according to the law of the Torah. Most of what women say about men is intended to get revenge for some imaginary slight. They lack the conditions by which lashon hara is permitted.

[The conditions for saying lashon hara about issues between man and God are different, but similar. There is a note in the Hafez Chaim that goes into this. From what I recall the main difference is that one does not need to see it oneself, but if the sin is "מוחזק" well known and public. Other than that I think all the same conditions apply.

Maybe they just don't know how terrible a sin is slander [lashon hara]. In that case, at least I feel I have done my little bit here to let people know about this issue. Probably I should have written about this before, but I figured people have heard about the prohibition of Lashon Hara already so what could I possibly add? But then it occurred to me that women might think just saying negative things about others  especially with intent to cause harm is just not the same thing. Maybe they are mad and that gives them some permission? 

Nowadays women consider it a badge of merit if they accuse their fathers and or ex husbands of sexual abuse.  I can not understand  why they do not read the Hafez Chaim before slandering someone to see if what they are doing is really a badge of merit or the reverse.

laws about slander. women nowadays think it is OK to falsely accuse men of sexual crimes.

 The laws about slander  See  R. Yona of Grondi [the book Gates of Repentance]. 

One issue that I wanted to bring here is that for some reason women nowadays think it is OK to falsely accuse men of sexual crimes. The reason for this is that even though people have heard of the prohibition of slander, they think that to bear false witness is OK. They are not aware that the main prohibition of slander is not just to say negative things about another person, but in particular to say things with intent to cause harm. [I can not say what repercussions there might be from this kind of sin,[probably hell], but I figure that women that lie about men think there will be no repercussions. At least we know that this sin is considered among the most severe. על שלש עבירות חייב אדם להיהרג ואל יעבור : עבודה זרה גילוי עריות שפיכות דמים ולשון הרע כנגד כולם The Gemara says On three sins one is obligated to rather be killed  than to transgress. Theses are idolatry, murder, the sexual sins brought in Leviticus 18, however lashon hara /slander is equal to all three of them put together.]

And how does one go about repenting for such a sin? Sins that are between man and his fellow man do not get forgiven unless one goes to the person he or she has offended and asked forgiveness. For women that have slandered their ex-husbands or fathers in order to get revenge, it seems unlikely they will ask for forgiveness.  So they might ask forgiveness in prayer, but that can not help until they ask from the one they slandered. And without that, the sin remains.

review ten times.

 In Shar Yashuv there was this idea of review ten times. [I do not know who originated this idea but it was well known and accepted. Later when I went to the Mir in NY I also heard people praising the owner of the local supermarket that he had done chapter 3 of Shabat ten times.

So without minimizing the importance of fast learning [in the path of Girsa -] I want to mention this ten time review idea. And further more I would like to suggest that this path of learning with ten times review seems to help also in Physics and Mathematics. That is to say, that sometimes in my limited time, I think that it is time to begin review, so I try to do this ten times of review method even in Physics.  It seems to work.

z12 music file

z12 mp3 file F Sharp Minor

 z12 midi file

z12 nwc

Lenin and Trotsky were more intent on getting rid of absolutism of the czar rather that how to form a proper government.

 It seems to me that Lenin and Trotsky were more intent on getting rid of absolutism of the czar rather that how to form a proper government. You can see this in his way of dealing with private property of the peasants. He wrote to leave it in their hands but still to leave management of it to the government.\What good is any private property that you can not decide how to use it?  Clearly the talents of Leni  and Trotsky were in the overthrow of the czar and not in government at all.

I was in a  house that the Jews that had been living there during the time of the last czar had dug a tunnel from that street  [now called st.  Lenina 34] until the city center where there was transportation to leave during the time of the czar. That was about a mile of digging through shear granite with no electric tools. They were obviously terrified of their lives from the anti-Semitic Ukrainians. [I was living there from October until May and only towards the end of my stay did the owner tell me the true history about that tunnel.]

Besides that I have to say that people always surprised me when I asked about the time of the USSR.I expected them to tell me how horrible it was during the time of that totalitarian system. They never said that. Their answer was always "It was better then than now." [Some would add: "Everyone worked." --meaning as opposed to then when things had fallen to bandits and open criminality.] 

a path that expands on the idea of the Gra to finish Shas to add to that to get through Physics and Metaphysics.

 I would like to suggest  that in all Litvak yeshivas even though the emphasis is on slow painstaking exact learning, still it is understood that in one's spare time he does get through Shas with Rashi and Tosphot. It is thought that no one has the right to any opinion in Torah thought until he has finished Shas at least once.

But that really is just the bare minimum. The actual idea of the Gra is to finish the two Talmuds and all the Midrashim, midrashei agada  and midrashei halaka. 

But add to that the idea of some of the Rishonim of the importance of Physics and Metaphysics, I would like to suggest these last two the the set that one ought to get through at least once. That is math up until Abstract Algebra, Algebraic Topology, Algebraic Geometry and Physics up until String Theory.

You can see this in the Gra himself who said what ever lack of knowledge one has in any of the seven wisdoms, to that degree he will lack in understanding of Torah a hundred times more. [Intro to translation of Euclid by Rav Baruch of Shkolov a disciple of the Gra.]

[The Metaphysics that the Rishonim are referring to is the set of books by Aristotle of that name. But also to the wider set of Plato and Plotinus. I would have to add Kant to that list.]  

alternative math

 

the Torah of the Realm of Evil in the vol I:30. [paragraph 8].

 The place in the LeM of Rav Nahman of Breslov where he discusses the Torah of the Realm of Evil in the vol I:30. [paragraph 8].

This is tied to the idea that one needs stubbornness to merit to true Torah. But there is a sort of stubbornness and arrogance of the Dark Side. So not everyone that claims to be teaching Torah  can be trusted or accepted since their Torah might be the Torah of the Sitra Achra. In fact, since we know from the Ari that the Dark Side is the majority rule in this world, so one ought to expect that most of those that claim to teach Torah are not from the Realm of Holiness. Rather they are probably teaching the Torah of the Dark Side.

According to the rules Rav Nahman gives there in that Torah lesson, it is clear that in place like the Mir and other Litvak yeshivas were there is humility, there is also true and authentic Torah. 

[You could go further into this subject by pointing out that not everything that pretends to be Torah is Torah. The Rif [Rav Isaac Alfasi] explains in Sanhedrin chapter 11 "Helek" that when R.Akiva said one who reads outside books has no portion in the next world refers to books that explain the Torah but not according to midrashei chazal [ the explanations given in the Gemara and or midrashim. Some books would be OK like the books of Rav Nahman or the Or HaChaim since they are simply explaining the Torah based on the midrashim of the sages." So when it says, "Everything that even the smallest student offers" in way of explanation, that refers to explaining the Midrashim that explain the Torah. Not coming up with explanations of his own on Torah." So not everything that pretends to be Torah is Torah.]

According tp the criterion of Rav  Isaac Alfasi it would be hard to a kosher book among thee religious .They all make up commentaries not based on midrahei chazal.

 

Rav Shach brings from a Gemara in Bekorot t

 There is something I have been puzzled about in Rav Shach.  A convert and idolater that inherit from their father, the convert can say to his brother the idolater "Take the idols, I the other stuff." But not if they are partners in business. That we know from the Gemara. The odd thing that Rav Shach comes to answer is why the Rambam in laws of forbidden foods says the reason the convert can not say this in the case of partnership is because the convert wants the existence of the idols to continue. Rav Shach brings from a Gemara in Bekorot that there is an opinion that even by two different sorts of things we still say there is retroactive choice. That much seems clear and a good answer for the Rambam. The puzzling thing is the reason Rav Shach says this argument exists in the Gemara. He says the opinion that holds there is retroactive choice in two sorts  holds there is not money in two sorts when we are talking about inheritance. The questions here jump out and that is why I have not written anything about this.

I still hope someday this will become clear. In the meantime let me just say some of the questions. (1) Money value or not should not determine if there is retro-active choice or not. (2) The case Rav Shach comes to answer is that of partners, not inheritors. So there is money in the objects and there should not be retro active choice. [Other questions I have forgotten for now.] 

depths of Tosphot.

 A lot of people are not aware of the depths of the Gemara and Tosphot. I myself was unaware of this in even though I knew there was an emphasis on in depth learning in Shar Yashuv and all Litvak yeshivot. But I had no idea of how to get to the depths. Like a deep sea diver--one needs the proper equipment,

So my year of study of Hulin I just did the Gemara with some Tosphot. And the class given by Rav Forest went into some Tosphot and rishonim and the Shulchan Aruch with the Taz and Shach on each subject. 

I learned on my own the Maharsha and Rashba, Ritva and Tosphot haRosh. Still I had no entry clearance into the depths of the Gemara until I asked Naphtali Yegeer a question on Tosphot. Then Before I could explain the question he asked me to say over the question and answer of Tosphot, When I started to do so I could feel a sort of of bump in the Tosphot. There he showed me that tosphot is intending some deeper level. Some question that Tosphot means to ask in around about way. but then would naturally occur a deeper question and there too in Tosphot itself would be the answer to that next question and thus one would go on for about twenty levels successively getting deeper and deeper. So I became aware of this depth in Tosphot even though I could not get there myself.

At the Mir in NY the sort of learning was very much along the lines of Rav Chaim of Brisk.--But the classes were not in Rav Chaim's book but rather the roshei yeshiva had there own new ideas in every class that were along the lines of Rav Chaim. It was like a continuation of of Rav Chaim. [The Roshei yeshiva there never wrote their ideas --all except the first year teacher who wrote the Sukat David which was a synopsis of his classes.] 

I still was not able to get to this level of depth, but I was aware that it existed sicne the window to it had been opened to me once. Later in Uman when David Bronson came I saw this level of depth again. He had learned in the yeshiva of the Gra in Jerusalem of Rav Silverman. [This seems to be a proof that the real authentic spirit of Torah is found only in Litvak yeshivas.]

the intellect can recognize input that is not sensory input but rather of existing universals.

 Kant comes up with an idea of intellectual intuition as a way to understand our limited faculty of reason as being dependent on external input. But that seems to be not exactly so. Rather it is possible that the intellect can recognize input that is not sensory input but rather of existing universals. This point of the Intuitionists [GE Moore, Prichard] seems quite true. To Kant intellectual intuition would have to create its own objects. But that doesn't seem to be so.

Hegel also criticizes  this idea of Kant from a different angle. One is that this idea in itself points to the connection between Being and Reason. This connection Kant recoiled from. Hegel also used an argument that one can not recognize that something is finite unless he has gone beyond it and seen the point at which it stops. So to recognize intellect as being limited means one has already gone beyond it. 

learning Torah along with Physics and metaphysics

Only after some time was I aware of the rishonim that hold of the importance of learning Torah along with Physics and metaphysics. That fact was not well known in Shar Yashuv or the Mir. It seems to me that even if I would have known about this I still would not have gone to the local university since I had no method of doing math at the time. [I was not aware of the path of learning of just saying the words and going on could be applied to math and physics. And philosophy as it was taught then in universities did not appeal to me at all. It seemed to me that philosophy was vacuous meaningless and when it comes to some some conclusion it is invariably wrong and lunatic. [It seemed that Kant was barely mentioned, and the universities were all into existentialism or "analytic philosophy."] If I could go back in time, I would today probably try a more balanced approach. Half day Gemara and Tosphot and half day Physics. (Philosophy I would still avoid unless it would be about basics--Plato Aristotle, Plotinus, Kant.)

world of straight Torah of the Gra is that it exemplifies the peak of wholesome living.

 There is some thread of wholesome clean living that permeates the Litvak yeshiva world and all those who walk in the path of the Gra and Musar. It is not something that I can put my finger on exactly, It is not physical cleanliness. Rather is is a sort of aura that a group has when it is devoted to good character traits.

But on the other hand there can be the problem that not every individual is like that. Even the leaders. Still the general feeling I have of that world of straight Torah of the Gra is that it exemplifies the peak of wholesome living. But one needs some sort of merit to stick with this. 

Hegel thought that the idea that reason needed to be confined to areas of possible experience meant it was empirical. Which invalided Kant's point.

 Hegel thought that the idea that reason needed to be confined to areas of possible experience meant it was empirical. Which invalided Kant's point. (That reason can be synthetic a priori.)  Hegel thought that by a process he called "dialectic" reason could progress beyond areas of possible experience in the dinge an sich. [But his dialectics did not progress as science in which a priori and empirical evidence work together but rather dialectic in finding contractions in the concepts themselves until one gets to the Absolute Idea, the Logos of Middle Age philosophers. ] Fries answers this question in a different way saying that there is non-intuitive immediate knowledge. And the intuitionists like Michael Huemer hold the whole question is ridiculous in the first place since why limit reason? Based on some misconception of Hume? [about the idea that reason can only tell your what is already implicit in definitions.

This results in my idea that each of these three schools has a good point  and ought to be part of the cannon of philosophy --Kant-Fries. Hegel. G.E. Moore.    

[Another aspect of Kant that is hard to understand is the core idea that the categories unite the intuitions [the sense perceptions]. As Kelley Ross points out that this is an important point. A bathtub full of computer chips is not a computer. You need all the functions of the mind  to process the information. But my question is "Who is the user"?

.

Conversation 76

In the Conversations of Rav Nahman is brought how he would go through four pages of the large Shulhan Aruch of Rav Karo during the time when people would start to gather in the morning to pray until they started praying. [At a normal pace of reading that would take about 2 hours if you take about 40 minutes to get through one page with the Magen Avraham and Taz plus the other commentaries. But lets say that in his days the large Shulchan Aruch did not have all the smaller commentaries, just the two on the sides [Shach and Taz and their parallels in the other volumes.] Still it would take at least an hour. So we know that Rav Nahman was reading more than fast. He was reading very, very fast. 

Ok you might say, that was because he was smart. But that is not the point. The point in Conversation 76 is that everyone ought to learn fast. As it says there "All you need in learning is to say the words in order and then to go on. And if you do not understand right away, eventually you will understand [by reviewing the book again and again.] And even of you never understand, so what? For the greatness of a lot of learning goes above everything else." לא צריכים בלימוד רק האמירה לבדה, לומר הדברים כסדר וממילא יבין ואם אינו מבין  תיכף יבין אחר כך ואם יישארו כמה דברים שאינו מבין מה בכך כי מעלת ריבוי הלימוד עולה על הכל

[However in Torah learning, I could not do things in exactly that way. In fact, in Litvak yeshivas the morning is for in depth learning, and the afternoon for fast learning. However this advice of Rav Nahman I found to be the only way I could get any Mathematics at all. For lots of review in Math made no sense to me. If I did not understand at first, then review did nothing. It did not matter if it was lots of review, or a little. So the only way I could get into math at all was by this method of Rav Nahman, and in fact, eventually I would start to get the idea (just like he said). That maybe does not make me a Peter Scholze or Fesenko, but I certainly understand a lot more than if I would not have learnt at all.

to object to some crime.

 There is a positive aspect to "be מוחה" to object to some crime. You can see this in the events of the concubine of Giva [in Book of Judges] where the whole tribe of Benjamin was considered guilty because they did not object. Also the Gemara goes into this in Gitin in the events of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza.

So I continue to object along the lines of the Gra and Rav Shach even though it is clear to me that I will not be listened to.  I do not do this on my blog since here, the whole idea of writing is in order to explain things that can be understood. But the fact of the Gra and Rav Shach objecting to evil is not understood and impossible to explain to people. The only people that were trying to warn others were the Gra, Rav Shach, Rav Israel Odesser of Breslov. But they were ignored\. 

music files. z11 z12

 z11 B Minor  z11 midi  z11 nwc

z12 mp3  z12 midi   z12 nwc

I found home work frustrating when I was in high school. I could not get home until after 600 PM each evening. And by that time I was pretty much tired out from the whole day. [I had two choices: I could walk home or wait for my dad to pick me up after his work at TRW. [Those are the people making satellites.] The result was always  that I was too tired to do much homework.] So when I got to Shar Yashuv in NY and the Mir, I was thrilled because of learning what has great value [Gemara]. And the atmosphere in a Litvak yeshiva tends to be highly conducive towards study.  I was a fish in water. 

[I ought to mention that the rosh yeshiva, Rav Freifeld, did ask me to also go to Brooklyn College, but I felt I could not divide my attention at that point.]

If I could today somehow manage to combine learning Gemara and also Physics and Math, I would do so.   

American Indians were generally at war with each other.

American Indians were generally at war with each other. Nor was slavery a foreign concept to them. They generally enslaved other tribes when they had the power to do so. [e.g. the Shawnee tribe would roast the captured men alive,  eat them and enslave the rest. The women generally were the commandants that would choose who would live and who would be digested.] So when a certain tribe of  Germanic tribes called Anglo-Saxon came, that was not particularly a new thing. Just more of the same except in one detail.  [See the  Ohio Frontier by Douglas Hurt published in 1996]

In Ohio the first Indians were destroyed by the Iroquois. So the Shawnee and other tribes chased them out until they in turn were chased out.  

the evil inclination of religious people is a "dibuk" i.e a demon

 Rav Nahman said the evil inclination of religious people is a "dibuk" i.e a demon that takes hold of their minds that they can not get freed of even when they want to. You can see this in a lot of religious people. Some sort of insanity takes hold of them that even they must realize to some degree is really lunacy. But that realization does nothing to free them.

there are parasites in the oceans and seas

 It might seem not all the relevant to this blog but I wanted to mention that there are parasites in the oceans and seas. An example is the teredo. Columbus on his 4th voyage to South America discovered a worm that literally ate up his ships.  Not a single ship was sea worthy after being eaten by that worm. So I wanted to mention that sometimes humans can also encounter parasites when they go to the beach. So what I wanted to mention is that these worms do not like to be squished. If one finds under his skin a parasite, I recommend squishing that area. That is much more effective than applying any type of medicine. בחולין מובא סכנתא חמירא מאיסורא In tractate Hulin it is brought the question why a danger to life was brought up in one discussion.. The answer was danger to human life is more be stressed that prohibitions.

Robert E Lee he sent a letter to the Secretary of War of the North objecting and signed "your humble servant."

 One of the greatest heroes of the Civil Was was Robert E Lee.  When he saw Northern soldiers under orders of General Pope [ a Northern general replacing McClellan]  maintain Nazi tactics [to take rob and plunder and much worse] against the populations of the South, he sent a letter to the Secretary of War of the North objecting and signed "your humble servant." When the shoe was on the other foot- when Southern troops were in control of Pennsylvania, their conduct was exemplary under orders or Robert E Lee. They did not touch the property or belongings of anyone under pain of death.[See the actual order signed by Robert E Lee. ] People in Pennsylvania said they would rather quarter 40,000 troops of the South than 1,000 of the North --their own side! [That was a statement of a Pennsylvanian farmer to a northern reporter.]