I had an idea today about the role of fear of God in the ultimate scheme of things.

I had a epiphany today about the role of fear of God in the ultimate scheme of things.
The thesis I want to defend is this: there is an Intermediate Zone that looks very much like holiness. People that get stuck there inevitably have miracles that they do, and people that come to them experience all kinds of lights and miraculous events. In fact, it is almost impossible to tell that it is the Intermediate Zone --kelipat nogah (קליפת נוגה האמורה במרכבת יחזקאל או היכלי התמורות של הזוהר) except for the effects it has on the community that surrounds the tzadik, guru, or pastor. But I believe I have found a way to skip over the Intermediate Zone:  Fear of God. And this Fear of God is what is well defined in books of Mussar [Ethics]  from the Middle Ages like the Duties of the Heart and the books of the disciples of Rav Israel Salanter.
(מדרגת האדם מיוסף הורוויץ וכוכבי אור מיצחק בלזר)

This is the multi layered thesis I want to defend.

One way I want to go about this is to examine the idea of the Rambam about what leads to Fear of God: learning Physics.  [If you read Maimonides carefully (בספר המורה) you will see he holds learning the  Metaphysics of Aristotle leads to Love of God, and Physics leads to Fear of God. (In Mishneh Torah he puts it all together. Learning the works of God inspires one to love and fear God. But he does not say that about learning Torah. And this idea of the Rambam is repeated by all the major books of Musar-- that learning physics and metaphysics brings to fear of God. Or lets me say they bring the actual language of the Rambam but as far as I know they might have been thinking it means kabbalah. [I mean  in Reishit Chachma he brings the Rambam but seems unaware of what the Rambam was referring to.  And this goes for almost all Musar books after the time of Zohar was published. They all assume  Maase Bresihit מעשה בראשית and Maase Merchava מעשה מרכבה are Kabalah. Exactly not like the Rambam.] In any case I never saw kabbalah bring anyone to love and fear God, but rather to a large range of messianic illusions. Thought I think that the Ari is important as a good approach to understand Torah. But I think most people that get into Kabbalah are not thinking of it in that way. I think they are looking for a spiritual uplift (a trip) or spiritual powers. So they get caught in the Intermediate Zone of Illusions. היכלי התמורות, עץ דעת טוב ורע)
  The obvious problem is that we do not see that the Natural Sciences divisions of most universities seem to have a lot of Fear of God.
  I would have to argue that this impression is only superficial. And that sciences students in my experience have more internal integrity and fear of God than most Orthodox Jews  who excel in external signs of fear of God.

There are paths of holiness that sometimes get blocked. The  tzadik צדיק tries to clear a path, and is sometimes successful, and sometimes even if he successful, is the underbrush  grows back and makes it uncross-able.


This happened to the path of [the Rambam] Maimonides. But that is because he made the connection between fear of God and science in only one direction. The truth is there is an opposite connection also--the path to physics is by fear of God. This path is unknown to date because people do not see the metaphysical significance in natural science. They think only people with talent can learn and understand science. This is not true.

The idea here is that people assume that with talent you can learn and excel in science, and without talent you can't. This only on the superficial level of science. There is a deeper level which one can reach only by Fear of God. But this fear of God is internal and unconscious. It can't be discerned by how much a person does external religious rituals.

[Of course some people with a great amount of talent go very far in science with no apparent fear of God at all because God sometimes gives people gifts and talents for no apparent reason, but here I am referring to people of average talent like myself.]

An example is the type of scientist my Dad [Philip Rosten] was. The fear of God in our home was not overt but very much present. [My Dad was responsible for a lot of the technology that went into focusing infrared rays and creating night version of the US Army and the camera for the U-2 and the satellite communication systems for SDI and other stuff ].

Appendix:
It does seems to me that we have a mitzvah of learning Torah and this is an obligation on every Jewish male all the time. The Rambam goes into detail describing how everyone is obligated --young old sick weary etc. He has a whole list. But he also expands this mitzvah to include Physics and Metaphysics.
I think that just like the mitzvah of learning Torah does not depend on whether one is smart or even understands his learning or not--so with physics and metaphysics. it think it is a mitzvah to learn Physics and Metaphysics --just like the Rambam said. I have no idea why this is either ignored by some Jews and take it as a general permission to learn secular subjects( though it is not a permission for general secular  things); or people take great offense at it.
I have seen for example in the writings of  Natan [Disciple of Rav Nahman] the idea that learning the natural sciences is a terrible thing. I can see perhaps he was reacting to the "Haskalah"(Enlightenment). But that learning science should be a bad thing is ridiculous and certainly not what any rishonim (first authorities) held..

My learning partner mentioned a source in the Talmud itself. We know the Rambam is bringing  his ideas from Chagiga and the story in the Talmud about R. Yochanan Ben Zakai
But there is also a story about R Ishmael ... [using science as a proof for how long the pregnancy of certain animals lasts. My writing got interrupted here so I forgot the details but I think that this was an argument between R Ishmael and the Sages in tractate Bechorot. ]

militant atheism

The issue of the militant atheism was brought up today in my Talmud session.


I was encouraged by my Rav Freifeld to learn secular studies. In this context, I learned Sartre. Even though I had read some Existentialist literature in Beverly Hills  High School, then that I first tackled the thick volume of philosophy of Sartre.
 I had a small degree of philosophical knowledge already which I had accumulated by my studies of Spinoza and Plato in high school. So Sartre seemed pretty second rate to me. I had already been exposed to the Greats.
Sartre came up because he was the first that tried to disprove the existence of God. Before him, there were people that did not believe but did not evangelize for that. [With my learning partner, I went through the different schools of Greek thought, but I can't do that here.]

Also mentioned in this conversation that my essay in which I drew a distinction between monotheism and the pantheism was inspired by Brad Scott and his essay. He had been  part of a Hindu sect, and became Christian. And he noticed that in Medieval Christian theology the distinction between monotheism and pantheism was clear.

Basically it was the Christians  that paved the path to a clear understanding of Monotheism,-- starting with Pseudo Dionysus. It is my opinion that when the Rambam borrows from Pseudo Dionysus [specifically the negative theology of the Rambam which is a distinctive Dionysus doctrine] and other Christian sources he does not mention his sources, but when he draws from Muslim sources, he does mention his sources. [The Physics of Aristotle is the obvious source for the Rambam's treatment of monotheism, but I think he also borrowed from Boethius. This would be worth  certain amount of effort to go into if anyone out there would be willing to spend the time and effort.]
Be that as it may. The type of faith that we Jews recognize as Monotheism was formulated very well by Maimonides.

Now I wanted finally to go into Godel and his formulation of  proof of Anselm.To my learning partner I just mentioned that I felt that mathematical logic was such a deep field that it would be for me like the Talmud. I would have to be involved in it for 30 years before I felt qualified to say anything intelligent about it. However from far away I can see a few things that can perhaps protect the proof of Godel from some of major critics. The compactness theorem for one.
[The Torah puts Monotheism as the foremost principle. That is the reason for the Rambam's approach.

The Intermediate Zone

[1] The Intermediate Zone (היכלי התמורות) (נוגה)  with the insights of Paul Brunton and Sri Aurobindo,
[2] The basic primate nature of all human beings,
[3] The need to enter the Intermediate Zone,
[4] Formation of cults around people that have only entered into the Intermediate Zone.
[5] The pseudo religions of psycho analysis, and psychiatry, and psychology which  partake of all the worst characteristics of the Intermediate Zone.
[6] Perhaps after all the above I might offer some suggestions about how the deal with the problem of the Intermediate Zone.


There is a ridiculously short amount of time today so let me just make my first major point as fast as I can.
People have to go into the Intermediate Zone. This is like university. There simply is no choice. You can't look at the writings of Aurobindo and Brunton and say well the Intermediate Zone is so dangerous, so why bother with the spiritual side of things at all? The reason is that we are all primates and the evil in our basic character comes out (from potential to action), and we fall into all the different types of viciousness that is associated with our animal nature whether we like it or not.
But to jump up to the Divine realms is not possible without preparation.
So we are stuck with the need to enter a very dangerous area of spirituality, an area in which people think because they have visions or powers that means they are enlightened. They simply do not realize that the Dark Side [Sitra Achara] is playing with them.

The solution I really don't know, but I have found a set of basic principles that has helped me as I wade my way through this swamp of cults.


I have seen a lot of manifestations of the Intermediate Zone. Most often this is with people of some established religion. This is more than people in Eastern cults. A lot of time a person accepts an established religion, and assumes that since it is the right religion, therefore all the intuitions he or she has come from the side of Holiness and Light.   At least people in Eastern cults seem to be aware of the possibility that their visions might not all be from the Side of Light.

Of course, it is not smart to be involved in a religion that was founded on someone who was heavily in the Intermediate Zone or the Dark Side (סיטרא אחרא) like Islam. But even religions founded on enlightened individuals do not provide protection from the Intermediate Zone.

One confusing issue is the difference between the Intermediate Zone and simple mental illness. Some people  look at any spiritual manifestation as mental illness. Sometimes this is correct. Sometimes they are confusing manifestations of the Intermediate Zone with insanity.


(rest of essay deleted)

If you want to understand about cults and the Intermediate Zone I recommend learning about Scientology which gives a good template or measuring stick to understand whether your group is a cult or not. Adi Da also is a good example --or in fact even a better example because of lots of powers and miracles phenomena that appeared there.  If you want to understand this subject these two examples are important to learn about.


stripping the gurus
 This is a good reference book for Eastern spirituality. But the same could be written about spiritual leaders in other traditional chains.

I was just looking over the Talmud in Bava Metzia and I saw an important point. On page 104.The Mishna brings two conditions in which in renting there is a meaning that is implied "this field" in the case where one says, "I want to rent this apartment from you." These are the two strongest conditions: "This" and the person that want to rent the place. But you don't know that the  Mishna required both conditions. All the Mishna does is juxtapose this with the case of a serf. With the serf there is no requirement that the field remain the same. [It is entirely conceivable that the mishna requires neither condition and only make the difference to depend on whether the case is serfdom or rent. Or that it requires both of the strongest conditions. Or anywhere in the middle also for that matter]
It is hard to know what the Mishna means.

So when we get to Ravina and Shmuel things pick up. Ravina says, all that matters is the "this," and Shmuel says all that matters is who said it (the person that wants to rent, or the one that wants to rent out his place).
Here is where the Rambam comes in and brings the Tosepfta (teaching) that says exactly the same things as the Mishna in the case of renting and says openly it does not matter if the word "this" was used. This is a proof to the Rambam that  if the renter said it, then it does not matter. My point is it is hard to see why the Tospefta should be assumed to be a proof of the meaning of the Mishna.

So today I will just mention an important subject in the Talmud. What happens if a rabbi makes a mistake in a halacha.

 I wrote an essay yesterday attacking the Trinity and suggesting to Christians to repent. To my surprise almost no one looked at my blog.
So maybe I will stop attacking Christians. Maybe there's enough of that on the Internet. And after all even in my own philosophy, what matters is not what people believe, but what they do.
[Of course what they do depend slot of what they believe.]



So today I will just mention an important subject in the Talmud. What happens if a rabbi makes a mistake in a halacha. The first strange thing about this subject is the fact that Rabbi Tarfon is brought [Sanhedrin 33] as an example of a person that made a mistake in a simple thing [Devar Mishna]. The concept of Simple thing {devar mishna) is from what Rav Papa said something there is no argument about. something known and simple. In the days of r Tarfon the question of a female sheep that had the uterus taken out was not a settled question

the next thing is rav sheshet. Even thought he is quoted as referring to a devar misha still what he said makes more sense if you explain it to refer to shikul hadat.--question of judgment.

The major point i am trying to get to is to make the disagreement between rav papa and rav sheshet refer to a argument between the rambam and the geonim.

From what I can tell people are mammals. And not just any mammals, but part of the group of primates. Besides the basic viciousness of character come along with that, people seem to be particularly prone to physical, mental, and character illnesses.

Though I was too young to participate, I think the events of the 1960's effected me greatly.People that were not around at that time can't relate to the atmosphere. For me the world disintegrating around me caused a "crisis of world view."

The urgency to form my own consistent world view has existed ever since then.

For this reason I looked at different religions and philosophies;-- all with the interest to form my own world view that had internal consistency and would correspond in fact with the real world.
I don't have time right now to go through all the mistakes and things that I can't tell if they were mistakes or not.
[I did a lot of searching in: Spinoza, Hinduism, Buddhism, Chinese philosophy, the Jewish Orthodox world, Christan streams of though, Islam etc. Though I never got that interested in Islam I had long discussions for several years with Muslim Imams and lived nearby a Muslim village. I have been around enough so that little that people do surprise me.  European philosophy is the most impressive of the bunch of world views I have seen and Plotinus and Maimonides, Kant and John Locke have to rate at the very top. (With honorable mention to  Anselm,  Aquinas, .)



Right now I will just state for the record my basic conclusion. If I have time I will try to go into the path that led me to this conclusion.
First the basic structure of my world view is that of Plotinus-- the neo-Platonic philosopher. But this comes with a slight modification. I don't think that Plotinus can be defended except by Immanuel Kant . Without immediate non intuitive knowledge there is no reason to assume to be true anything that Plotinus says. There is no ground for any of it. It comes across as ancient mysticism. But with Kant, Hegel and Schopenhauer a whole world opens up--the world that Plotinus navigated.

The meaning of this and it relevance for issues today is thus: It means that I am firmly in medieval school of thought of Jewish thinkers like the Chovot LeVavot [Duties of the Heart] and Maimonides (who was far more neo-Platonic than people realize).


The practical relevance for all this is that I know that some people feel free to ignore facts and reality in their pursuit of religious purity. I am not among them.

\
From what I can tell people are mammals. and not just any mammals but part of the group of primates. Besides the basic viciousness of character come along with that people seem to be particularly prone to physical mental and character illnesses.
Religions that claim people are basically good are false.
Psychology is just another religion with its own false doctrines and high priests.

This is not to say that mental illness and character illness are not real problems.
But in terms of applying the basic principles of the Torah to real life situation. I find the Talmud and the books of the medieval thinkers like Maimonides are the best.
I think sin is a cause of lots of problems and also bad character traits like anger or pride. As far as that goes Israel Salanter was right. The only hope for people to improve their character is to make a whole movement around learning the books of ethics that deal with that issue

However it seems to me that it is safe to say that the idea of closeness with a tzadik [saint or Guru] is not in the Torah.

In a neo Platonic system there is a possibility of having a central personality.
You can see this in the thought of  Eastern Religions.
However it seems to me that it is safe to say that the idea of closeness with a tzadik [saint or Guru]  is not in the Torah.
Just the opposite. There were plenty of people that were close to King Saul and King David that did not end up very well. I might mention Doeg and Avshalom, but to me the most striking example is Yoav ben Tzeruya
This is the saddest story in the Torah. King David would have been nothing without this fellow. Zilch. Talk about "shimush talmidai chachamim."
[Yoav was the general of David and he stood by David when all his friends turned against him.]



 I can see this as perhaps one reason the Rambam went to Aristotle.
The simple truth is that the Torah does not look very Neo Platonic.



He might have and does have many character flaws. It means simply someone attached to God in some abstract way and someone that one can also become attached to God by means of some connection with this person. --Like with me hearing his talk on Shabat and by being in the land of Israel.]
On the other hand it is hard to know the meaning of this Light. It does not seem to imply higher knowledge or better character.
In the Torah, the central point is to keep the commandments of God which are 613.And of all the commandments there are ten that are central. And in these commandments, the place of ones physical father and mother occupy a central place, not any prophet tzadik  or other role model. [The commandment of the Torah to honor ones father and mother refer to ones physical parents.It does not mean one can exchange them for what one wants to believe are his spiritual parents and then make up a commandment to honor them. this is falsifying the meaning of the Torah.] The reason for this is simple if one has learned a bit of the writings of Isaac Luria. The father provides one with his or her outer protective light. and ones mother provides him or her with the internal light.

Plotinus makes a very good point about human personalities, those closer to music or love need more direction than those closer to metaphysics.

Maimonides and Physics

I have wondered about the approach of the Rambam towards learning what he calls Physics and Metaphysics. [He says what the ancient Greeks called Physics and Metaphysics is what in Torah is called the "Work of the Divine Chariot" and the "Work of Creation." מעשה מרכבה ומעשה בראשית.]

My question is why does he put this into the category of service of G-d?

Now in the Jewish people there has been a traditional approach to what could be called "the service of God." This is is usually considered to be learning Torah and doing mitzvot and good deeds.
The approach of the Rambam never made a dent in Jewish theology.

I have never heard of any explanation either of why or how this could be considered the highest service of God -- even greater than learning Torah.
Though I have seen in other books [Maalat Hamidot מעלות המידות, Chovot Levavot etc.]
from medieval Jewish thought that adopt this approach to some degree, but never with the wallop that the Rambam gives it.


I would like to suggest here the reason for the Rambam. It is due to his Aristotelian philosophy.

It goes like this: everything has  four causes. The final cause is it purpose. Every individual object in the world has purpose. And the world itself has purpose. When one serves God by revealing the light and reason and logic in everything in the world, this accumulates in the higher purpose of the whole creation.

Personally, I have adopted the approach of my parents and Maimonides as the proper approach.
This is not Reform or Conservative or Orthodox. Just like you can not fit Maimonides himself into any of these modern categories so my path also.
 The failure of Reform was to teach moral relativism and to equate Left wing politics with Torah.
They are not teaching the approach of Maimonides, but neither are the Orthodox.

The idea of Aristotle. He goes along with that everything has purpose, and  every purpose in itself has a purpose. You can see there the implication that each of the four Aristotelian causes has in itself four Aristotelian causes.

Reform Judaism is not a cult. In fact it has some things right that Orthodox Judaism does not have.
(1) Monotheism. Orthodox Judaism has become a religion of pantheism which is opposed to the world view of the Torah and the Talmud and the Ari. That would be in addition to the pantheon of little gods they have.
(2) They are not opposed to the State of Israel and in fact do what they can to support it.. I have never heard of a Reform or Conservative person that was opposed to the State of Israel. I do  not look kindly on many Orthodox  who support the effort of the Muslims to wipe Israel off the map and drive the Jews into the ocean.
These are two important issues. When the  Ultra Orthodox  not just in word, but in deed try to bankrupt the State of Israel.
When  the  Ultra Orthodox support Islamic causes, they don't seem to realize that they are supporting people that have every intension of murdering Jews  like they have always done and seem to be intent on doing for the perceivable future.[What I mean is  the  Ultra Orthodox think they are just opposing the political contract of the State of Israel. They want to be under gentile rule. But they don't realize that gentile rule in Israel was never benign.]



(3) Reform lacks the astounding amount of child sexual abuse that goes on in the Orthodox world


The problem however is that for some reason Reform do not learn the much Mishna or Talmud. And even the Conservative do not make it a priority.
And the very idea of keeping the commandments is not on the radar scope of the Reform. Well at least the right wing of the Conservatives do better in terms of keeping mitzvas.

The major problem with Reform it they lack the numinous  aspect of Torah.




I think the Conservative movement is on the right track in terms of emphasizing the Talmud but also recognizing that reason and logic and science also are authorities in there areas.
At this point I would have to say that since the Orthodox seems to have problems with facts and reality that it has morphed into a cult. Orthodox have had plenty of time to get their act together, and just seem intent on getting more and more fanatic.

Kabalists in Israel

Kabalists in Israel. One way to tell if someone is fraud is by listening to them when they mention a subject you know something about. [They claim to knowledge in Talmud, but when they open their mouths the effect is spoiled] This test works for  other subjects as well. It was mentioned to me about a religious book called Genesis and the Big Bang. But it works for kabalah as well.
But the whole scene of kabalists in Israel is confusing. Perhaps it might be better to mention one at a time. I have forgotten so many it might be hard for me.
Perhaps a few names at first just to help me so some recall.
There was that fraud who prayed at the western wall every day for the sunrise minyan. He had the major characteristic of most kabalists in Israel that whatever personal likes and dislikes they have, they attribute it to Ruach Hakodesh (the divine spirit רוח הקודש).
There was that fellow in the old city who  had some connection with Rav Ashlag. But since he is not part of the Kabalah Center, people go to him for a Sabbath meal, and get a little spiritual inspiration. He is believe it or not a OK fellow. I would not exactly call him a kabalist along the lines of Bava Sali but he is a kosher person.

Then there are the  kabalists that learn Shalom Sharabi. They like to think that they are the real thing, but they too are just deluding themselves. And have all the normal character traits of frauds. And actuality believe anything they think is automatically the Divine Spirit. But in terms of knowledge of kabalah it seems to me that they are actually doing well. They take the Ari and the Reshash and do a rather rigorous examination of both. I have even heard from one friend in the old city that this Reb Yaakov actually knows an thing or two.
But none of these people are "up there."
  They are just looking in from the outside, and as usual filled with delusions of grandeur which seems to be part and parcel of anyone who touches the Zohar.
  Then there are all the kabalists that actual have some kind of spirits divine or otherwise.

  I have to say that they people are not really kabalists per say. They don't know much of the Ari or the Reshash. But they have something. It is what should be called trans-personal. It is not the divine spirit. but it is something. but they confuse it with the divine spirit. This is a trait of the religious world that they assume any spiritual manifestation buy a Jewish persona has to be from the Divine realm.

Then there are all the descendants of Bava Sali.

Bava Sali had great character but a lot of the miracles were a result of his character, not some kind of knowledge. But the flaw was that his knowledge was not perfect. He made mistakes about people and even the failed miracles are not advertised. There were times he said such and such a thing will happen that simply never came about.


Descendants of Bava Sali tend to have something of his spirit. I could mention a few. Rav Shimon Buso in Netivot, Reb David Abuchatzeira in Naharia, Moshe Buso in Jerusalem [somewhere in the vicinity of Rechov Shmuel HaNavi]. The daughter of Bava Sali, Avigail Buso. She definite has something like the Divine Spirit.

The book of Spinoza, the Ethics, was a companion of mine for all my years in high school. But eventually I started seeing some problems in his logic. There are good reasons I switched to Leibniz and Kant.
But as Jewish books go as far as ethics is concerned, the Ethics of Spinoza is powerful. 

The Ethics ("Musar") books of the Middle Ages e.g., The Duties of the Heart, are better than the Ethics. They avoid some of the problems you find in Spinoza. They are a little more modest about what we can know.




I forgot it, but I did have some way of defending Spinoza. I think it was something like this: What is an accident? Some characteristic of a substance. The difference between them is the substance is permanent and the accident can go away. A leaf can be green in spring and red in fall. But substances also change. In fact there is little that is permanent. What is it that these substances are accidents of?
It is this permanent substance that survives  all changes that Spinoza calls substance.
 This argument is what I used to try to defend Spinoza. Not that I am particularly happy with them but that at least we can understand what Spinoza was trying to get at.

Now if you want to give a critique on Spinoza, it would go like this. Even with this justification, that is still not a axiom. Typically an axiom in Geometry or Physics starts  with something self evident and almost trivial. For example if a=b, then b=a. You don't start with something highly counter intuitive and then try to make it into an axiom like "Nothing can affect a substance." [Even though philosophers do this all the time since Hume, it still just talking cleverly and making something dumb sound smart. ] For reasons like this. and several others(that Leibniz pointed out) I decided that Plato, Aristotle, Maimonides, and Kant were closer to the truth.

\


Spinoza puts a condition of substance which almost forces his conclusion of Pantheism. 

 People claim for the Rambam the title of the greatest Jewish philosopher. Maybe he was, but the Guide for the Perplexed is the most perplexing book I have ever read.
They used to print it with the commentary of Joseph Albo. If you can get through it congratulations! I found it frustrating. And the medieval alchemy really bothered me.
But if you want to get to what Maimonides was saying without having to go through hell and back to find out, then the best book I ever saw is David Hartman's. And the Rav Kook Institute also had a very good edition of the Guide with a short but very good commentary.  Also Rav Kapach from Yemen had an edition based on the original manuscripts of the Guide with his own very deep commentary. If you have time I would recommend learning these and also Plato and Aristotle in order to have an idea of the issues that the Rambam was addressing in the Guide.

I have been challenged to write an essay about moral objectivity.. I have not read the essay on the Standford or Internet encyclopedia of philosophy.. [Whatever is there I am sure I could never write anything better than that.] But in the meantime, I just want to organize a few thoughts about this subject.
  First, Professor Michael Humemer does not use the idea of the fallacy of subjectivity in his essay because he knows that an outside statement about morality can be coherent as long as the statement itself is left outside the set of all moral facts.[As Moshe Israel Rosten noticed] 
  To defend Moral Objectivity I could in theory use  Professor John Searle's argument. [ Here is the web adress: http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~jsearle/] But his argument works really only against the idea that all knowledge is subjective. But some people don't say that. They say just moral facts are subjective. This is harder to defeat. (Moshe Israel Rosten pointed this out to me. This is because the moral relativist might accept there is objective truth but just not in the area of morality. For that you need the essay of Michael Huemer in Colorado http://www.owl232.net/objectiv.htm)

But I should mention that my interest in objective morality actually goes deeper than a challenge on the Internet. When I was learning Torah I certainly thought I had found one self consistent objective logical and reasonable system of morality and a unified coherent world view. That illusion has been smashed. In its place I have a philosophical system based on Kant and Plato that the Torah can be justified with.  But what I presently believe in does not really come anywhere near the grandeur of Torah and Talmud. So what I try to do is to fit the Torah into my present world view. But the whole process is like  the practice medicine used to be about a hundred years ago. It is a hodge podge of different things that seem to work with no unifying principle
At any rate Michael Huemer does a neat thing. It claims that also the claim of all moral values are subjective is alos incoherent in this way:


Since rational judgment presupposes some ground apart from the judgment on which for it to be based, the denial of objectivity implies the intrinsic impossibility of rational moral judgment, since said denial means that moral values cannot have any independent existence apart from the mind

"There is a systematic plan to establish an Islamist beach head in the United States with the eventual goal of watching the United States crumble from within and establishing Islamic rule in this country,"

Steve Emerson's 70-minute film, Jihad in America: The Grand Deception, was released on DVD last October. Emerson, who directs The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), says the documentary traces the roots of Islamism inside the United States and reveals the chilling reality about the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood.

"Our job is to change the Constitution of America," Sayyid Syeed, national director of the Office for Interfaith & Community Alliances for the Islamic Society of North America, says in the film. "There is a systematic plan to establish an Islamist beach head in the United States with the eventual goal of watching the United States crumble from within and establishing Islamic rule in this country," Doug Farah, a national security consultant and analyst, adds.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/media/2013/01/10/jihad-in-america-the-chilling-reality

My own comment on this is that America will not be able to fight an enemy as long as it does not acknowledge the fact that it is an enemy. America and the whole western world and Russia also ought to learn the difference between a friend and an enemy before it is too late. Even Russia needs to learn this.
This is not the same type of conflict as the cold war. That was a conflict between two powers each trying to prove to the other that they could make a decent and just society. This is not what Muslims are trying to do. They are trying by the power of money and oil to infiltrate and destroy Russia and the USA.
It does not help to go back in history to find people like Ibn Rushd, or al Farabi. The question is what is Islam today. The greatest threat to the survival of the human race in two million years. and a threat to the very existence of Planet Earth.
Muslims armed with atom bombs are just as much a threat to us all as Muslims armed with a 747 jet airliner. Even more so.

Kabalah? Is it for you?

I would like to defend the theses that it is better to leave the Zohar alone. But I would like to also say this with the understanding that often there are very good insights into the Torah which you can find in the Zohar and the Ari (Isaac Luria האריז''ל).
To I make my these clearer I want to say that what gentiles consider Kabbalah and what the Zohar and the Arizal [Isaac Luria] are about are two very different things. The Zohar is not about magic. It is a neo platonic explanation of the Old Testament.

And it is an explanation that is necessary  for many reasons. One is that the alternative--Maimonides [the Rambam] with his reasons for the mitzvot  based on Aristotle are not very convincing. Clearly some type of Neo -Platonic approach is necessary. [See other medieval kabbalists especially Avraham Abulafia and the Ramban (Nachmanides).] (I mean the Rambam might be right but in any case he is hard to accept and grasp.)

Yet I still have to say that my general impression of people that learn Zohar is that they start thinking they are the Messiah, and get other delusions rather quickly.

That is just one criticism of it. I have another one also. It is this. That the aspect of Torah which is Numinous and holy is not touched by the Zohar or the Ari. This is an inner holiness of Torah which has nothing to do with the things talked about in the Zohar at all.

I should say that I spent time learning Kabbalah, and I am familiar with many of the so called "kabalists" in Israel, so I am not completely ignorant about this subject. I learned the Eitz Chaim of  the Ari [Isaac Luria] several  times, and went through the other writings of the Ari at length. I read several works of the Remak (Moshe Cordovero) including the Pardes and the Reshash and prayed with the Sidur HaReshash for many years. I went through  several authors of Medieval kabbalah like Avraham Abulafia and others. A lot of this was very inspiring for me.  But still it has the tendency is to instill delusions into people.
I know the fraudulent kabbalist of the Kotel.  And I knew others that had actual insights. One fellow had virtual film going through his head showing him the life of people that came to him. [He was put into Cherem (excommunication) by Rav Ovadia Yosef]  I was close with many of the disciples and descendants of Bava Sali.

Also one odd thing was that people that learned Kabbalah also thought they knew how to learn Gemara (The Babylonian Talmud), even though they could never tell you a simple explanation in any Gemara  They seemed to believe their expertise in Kabbalah gave them expertise in everything.

So though Kabalah is a legitimate sub-section of Torah learning, still there is the problem of cults.
And the Sitra Achra that got mixed up with it also.

The main principle in terms of Kabalah is this: Sephardim are OK, Ashkenazim are not.
The Ramchal also is fine [as far as I can tell], even though Rav Hutner (Rosh Yeshiva of Chaim Berlin) is reported to have said that some aspects of his teachings come from the Shatz.] 

  So I say in general simply to learn in a kosher Lithuanian type of yeshiva.
And avoid kabbalists. [But it is still OK to go to descendants of Bava Sali for blessings and advice-not because of Kabbalah, but rather from the standpoint of being descendants of a tzadik which gives  certain kind of merit.]

I think it is common practice for nations to try to limit the ability of their enemies to launch attacks from nearby bases. From what I understand this was part the reason the the USSR absorbed different territories after WWII and the reason they demanded that American remove its nuclear missiles from Turkey and the reason that Israel took the Golan Heights.

In spite of my ignorance about American history I recently read a very nice book on the subject and it was amazing in given the basic overview with detail but not too much. From what I can tell it was not just the British but also France was taking American boats and men. The thing which triggered the war was that after both England and France had signed agreements to discontinue this practice, they kept on doing it.

Besides that England was not fighting Napoleon at the time. They were involved with an economic war with France. And this was part of the reason they impounded American boats they could trade freely with France and England. This bothered both England and France.
In the attack on Canada, America was intending to limit the ability of England to launch naval attacks against America.
I think this is common practice for nations to try to limit the ability of their enemies to launch attacks from nearby bases. From what I understand this was part the reason the the USSR absorbed different territories after WWII and the reason they demanded that American remove its nuclear missiles from Turkey and the reason that Israel took the Golan Heights.I think this was also the reason that America attacked Florida when it was owed by Spain and why it took possession of Alabama --i.e with intent to stop the attack the creek Indians.I will not even go into the reason for taking Texas.