Translate

Powered By Blogger

23.7.15

Sometimes God is hidden from  me. But I know he is hidden. But sometimes the fact of His being hidden is also hidden. That is he is so hidden from me that I think he is not hidden at all and I imagine myself close to him. This is not just me but you find this with people that are convinced they are on the right path. They don't have a sense of ontological uncertainty. They think everything is permitted. They are convinced that God loves them,-- no matter what they do. That is: the fact of God being hidden from them is hidden from them.   ואנכי הסתר אסתיר פני ביום ההוא {See Deuteronomy in the Song of Moses in which Moses prophesies  that God says, "I will hide my hiding on that day."}

But even when God is hidden in הסתרה שבתוך הסתרה "hidden-ness that is hidden," it is still possible to reveal the presence of God when one  seeks Him. You seek God by Torah. Torah is the interface between God and his creation. This inserts an intermediate step that you don't have in Schopenhauer.
With Schopenhauer there is only the Will (the thing in itself, the dinge an sich) and the entire creation is the representation of that Will (i.e. conditioned reality).

Torah is the Representative of God and the creation being the representation of Torah. . For it is the open aspects of Torah that are represented in the world. But it is the hidden aspect of the Torah  that is contained in the hiding of the hiding.

The idea here is that God has an interface with the world.  Torah is that interface. That is the Written Torah and its explanation that was written down by the Tenaim and Amoraim. [That is like how you interact with your hard drive. You need some interface in order to do so.]


What I suggest then is a yeshiva in which the Oral and Written Torah are learned and practiced. But the Torah learned has to be authentic. Way too many pseudo yeshivas exist. I can count the real yeshivas in the entire world on five fingers. Three in NY: Mirrer, Chaim Berlin, Torah Vedaat. And two in Israel: Ponovitch and Brisk. Most so called "yeshivas" are actually evil cults.



22.7.15

q10  q10 midi q10 nwc

q13 q13 midi I do not see a nwc file for this,  but if one wants the notes, he can get them from the midi file; just not the instruments.

21.7.15

It is on the Jewish calendar the yarzeit of the Ari. And in a kind of environment in which Talmud is learned all day long I think the Ari is important. But from my point of view the reason the Ari is important is more as  good explanation of Torah. The Ari helps me at least to deal with problems of interpretation.  Arguments from authority aside I should mention to that Yaakov Abuchaztira the ari was simply "rabbainu". That is if you find in the writings of Yaakov Abuchatzaira simply "our teacher" that always refers to the Ari.

But the problem is that we have a definition of "outside books"  as the Rif defines it. The Rif says those are books that "explain the Oral or Written Torah with new foundations or principles that are not already contained in those books." And most of the ideas in the Ari don't seem to have a source in the Talmud. I think the answer to this is that in fact in the agadic parts of the Talmud, you do find things that hint to the basic principles of the Ari.

At any rate, never learn Kabalah with Ashkenazim. They always get it wrong and it has serious consequences when they do.

The best approach is this: If you have a daily session in Gemara in depth [about a hour] and  one learning quickly [also an hour] then the Ari is a good idea to supplement to your daily routine.
Even though I have  a great deal of respect for Isaac Luria, and I was very inspired by his writings, still I think that it makes more sense to learn Talmud. This is a shift in my thinking. For  a few years back I used to think learning the writings of the Ari  was the most important kind of learning Torah one could do.
That thinking was based on various statements in the introduction of the Eitz Chaim itself and also the Ramchal's Pri Eitz Chaim. At some point I saw the statement of the Rambam that just  as one can't add or subtract from the written Law so with the Oral Law.  So I realized that although the Ari is an important interpretation of the Torah still it does not count as the Oral or Written Law.
That is just as the written law is fixed--the Old Testament, so the writings that constitute the Oral Law  that were complied during the period of the Tenaim and Amoraim constitute the Oral Law.


20.7.15

Baali Teshuva [Newly religious] in the USA are animated by Torah. The Torah literally gives them a kind of high--but more powerful than a drug high--because the Torah high has numinousity and meaning. It has ontological significance.
Baali Teshuva in Israel are animated by group identity, by animosity towards the State of Israel and by the particular Charismatic leader they happen to be following.

How this sad state came about I don't know. But there is a cure. That is to learn Torah in the straight Lithuanian way--and stop the nonsense. At least the police are looking for the con men that are the leaders of Breslov. But why it took the Israeli Police this long to start an investigation is beyond me.
The rule is anyone under the excommunication of the Gra is a con man.Take it or leave it. But that is a fact.

The basic idea of a  excommunication is subject to a debate between the Beit Yoseph and the Rashbatz. The Rashbatz considers it to be in the category of  איסר which has the law of neder (vow). That means it חל (-it applies) on the object and even in the case of a mitzah.
The Beit Yoseph thinks we should consider it to have the stringency of both a  neder vow and a שבוע
The Magid Mishna brings an open Gemara that it has the law of a neder.
[Thus the excommunication that was signed by the Gaon of Villna is still in force and those that ignore it are in the category of transgressing a vow.]]
j64 [mp3]  j64 [midi]
I saw there has come out a book on Jews that were in Berlin during WWII. That is they were hidden  by Germans during the war. This I suppose must apply to the grandparents of my wife, Leah. They were definitely German Jews and were in Berlin during WWII. But how they managed to survive I never inquired about except just to ask once and never got any answer. It was like people that go through some kind of hard experience and afterwards cant talk about it.

My wife's mother herself had been on the kinder transport so she did not have any first hand information about how her parents had survived. 

19.7.15



Schopenhauer said the "thing in itself" is the Will. I would like to claim that two levels of dinge an sich. That is I want to preserve some of Schopenhauer insights. But I also want to have mundane objects to have this aspect also of ding an sich. So I want two or more levels of this as is clear anyway from Kelly Ross--as his objects of value [which have increasing levels of numinosity] as in fact levels of this ding on sich.
But furthermore, I want to Will to be the observer. In this way, I think we come to a unique understanding of Transcendental Idealism. If the Will is the observer, then this boils down to mundane objects being dependent on the existence (i.e. idealism) of the Will, but independent of his experience (transcendent). After he makes them, they don't depends on his watching them every second in order to exist as the Rambam already said in the Guide. They are not a part of His existence though they depend on his existence.


Appendix:

(1) I forgot to mention: the one kind of ding an sich is hidden from pure reason. That is to say there is human reason which is flawed because of our being prone to reason baldly. But there is human reason that is pure. But even that reason (which is called by Kant) pure reason has a limit. Then there is the reason of the Will which created reason in the first place. That Will will have to have a higher type of reason.

And so one kind of ding an sich is hidden from pure perception and another kind is hidden from pure reason. That is the Creator of pure reason is hidden from pure reason.


(2) I am not claiming to have any knowledge of Kant or Schopenhauer. I wish I would have to the time for that. Here I am only making two suggestions based on my merge understanding of some of their major points. At some point I tried to get into Kant but it takes a tremendous amount of time.

(3) The basic questions on what I wrote up above are these: the third man problem concerning reason. and the fact that observation and experience in the above context are the same.
The that means to say I am saying there is a difference between pure reason and the reason of the First Cause. [This is well known from the Rambam.] But then we would have to have a higher reason beyond that to make the reason of the First Cause into Reason. I tried to answer this question in the above essay by the idea that God created reason itself so we don't need to postulate anything beyond that.
The second question is that Transcendental Idealism postulates the existence of the object is independent of experience [beyond experience] but dependent on the existence of the observer. If we say First Cause is the observer it seems hard to say things are beyond his experience. But for monotheism I think we have to say that.


The truth be told the path of Torah is  highly individualistic.

On one hand learning Talmud has this quality of connecting one with the Will and First Cause if done with that intention. That is for it to really work it has to be done like baali teshuva do it--for itself or "Lishma." And there is such a thing as learning all day. I mean in  the view of Reform Jews making money is either or. Either you go to collage and learn an honest profession, or you will depend on charity. That is why most Reform parents are horrified when their children decide to go to yeshiva.
And to a large degree they are right. However in the Torah we do find a third way--a path in which one learns Torah all day and yet depends that God will send to him his living needs without depending on charity. This not just some  opinion of mine. It is a direct Mishna in Pirkei Avot.

But this seems to depend totally on one motivation for learning. In this case we are not looking at teh question if an action is right or wrong independent of intention. Here the rightness or wrongness depends on intention.
In any case I find it difficult or maybe impossible to recommend learning Torah all day. I  can see that this is justified for some people depending on the pureness of their motive. But what usually see is bad results. And I thin the bad results are because the motives are not pure. But who can tell such a  thing? I can't judge other's motives. But the results are open for all to see. One Torah becomes  means for making money then the results seems to be consistently bad.

18.7.15





closeness to a true tzadik. Leaders of Breslov are and have always been con men. Another example is talking alone with God--hitbodadut. In Breslov this is always a pubic affair with organized trips with fan fare and  a wide public appeal to give charity to make such trips possible. Learning Torah is another example. If Torah is learned at all, it is never Gemara, Rashi, and Tosphot. In terms of this aspect of Torah it would be more sensible to join an authentic yeshiva like the Mirrer Yeshiva or the other great yeshivas of New York.  

Music for the glory of God.

17.7.15

Kelley Ross, -- Kant with the approach of Leonard Nelson.

My value system is based on a Kelly Ross idea. .
e That is to say my value system which works for me is balance between an array of good and great ideals.

That is it is not enough for me to be walking in what I think is the right path. I have to have some way of justifying it or at least defending it.
You could probably guess without my saying the basic values. To speak the truth at all cost, family values, loyalty to family and friends  and towards anyone who has done for me a good turn. To learn every day a little math, a little physics, a little Gemara. To avoid cults.