even though marrying the daughter of a Torah scholar in an important value, I can see that it is more important to marry someone that appreciates learning Torah [for its own sake].

 Human relations are hard to figure out. My wife was absolutely intense on marrying me. This relation had started to some degree in high school. She was a  violinist in the high school orchestra when I first saw her. We got along very well but there was no serious relationship. Then when I went off to Shar Yashuv in NY [a great Litvak yeshiva in NY], she had written a note to God telling him that she thought that I had discovered something important, but I had disappeared. She was hoping I would call her and let her know what I had discovered. Then after a year, I called her. [For the last year in high school and my first year at Shar Yashuv, I had no contact with any of my former friends. Intentionally]. But while I was back home in California, after one year I decided to call her. This is a long story, but she became extremely intent with trying to get me to marry her--which I did.--And I am very happy that I did so. But she was not the daughter of a Torah scholar, so she did not really understand what I was doing in learning Torah. Maybe I myself did not understand this. Learning Torah is after all an area of value that is beyond human reason. 

And the odd thing is that very often daughters of Torah scholars also do not seem to appreciate learning Torah. I began to see that Torah to most people is a means to make money. So even those that learn Torah for its own sake would be at a loss to understand why the religious world cannot see learning Torah for its own sake as a positive value.

So even though marrying the daughter of a Torah scholar in an important value, I can see that it is more important to marry someone that appreciates learning Torah [for its own sake].

The answer of Dr Ross to my letter about the difference between Copenhagen and Everett.

[I was advocating Everett as being a better approach since there is no magical collapse of the wave function. But then Dr. Kelley Ross points out that in in Bohr there must be an observer (somewhere) for Quantum mechanics to work. And this two level of reality is essential to Kant and Plato also.    

[I also want to mention that Everett's many worlds theory does not mean many universes, but can simply be different areas in our universe where the different possibilities of QM come to be.]

I think it is important to mention here that even in Everett, there is an observer. So the two levels of reality are preserved. I.e., in Bohr if u have two and one observes the other then there is a collapse of the wave function. But someone outside of that system can see them both as one system and thus still connected by one wave function. [You can see that even a piece of matter like an electron can have a wave function--because of E=mc^2. So the outer observer sees just these two inner people as a connected wave.]  

When you say "QM just gets larger and larger as far as one wants to go," I take that to mean that there is no "magical collapse" of the wave function, ever.  This "Everett" must be one of the people who doesn't like the dualism implied in quantum mechanics.

He's not alone, although usually it goes the other way, that the reality of the wave is dismissed and particles affirmed.  But it is hard to leave out the particle part, since particles do at times behave like particles:  They have definite location (within Uncertainty) and Dirac's mathematics for them postulates a geometrical point, which a wave is not.

So this doesn't seem right or helpful to me.  The whole idea of a Kantian quantum mechanics is that the dualism is preserved, as in Kant's metaphysics.  You don't like that?

KR

the importance of the Gra

There is on one hand the very great importance of learning Torah. On the other the religious world which makes it money by means of a pretense of keeping Torah is quite corrupt. Even though there are here and there great yeshivot which keep and learn Torah sincerely, the religious word itself is mainly fill with delusions. Thus it is clear that for anyone to keep and learn Torah sincerely he or she must stay away from the corrupting influence of the religious . I have no claim to understand the hearts of men, but I can see clearly that the practices of the religious have nothing to do with Torah at all. It is all a show or the sake of money and power.

However, the general world of the Litvaks is basically OK.--except that they have not and do not realize the importance of the Gra. If they would the signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication would be listened to.

My question that I asked Dr Kelley Ross and his answer. [He is going with the Friesian sort of modification of Kant.--and frankly I can not see any other way to go with Kant.

(Here Dr Ross quotes my question): There was one letter that I sent where I was asking if immediate non intuitive knowledge can help for how intuitions can fit into the basket of the categories and thus become united. 

(Dr Ross's answer:) In Kant, there is confusion about "intuition," since he originally says that it is given to us without any functions of thought, but then he ends up with the argument that to enter consciousness, intuition must be synthesized using the categories of the understanding.

Non-intuitive immediate knowledge is outside that debate.  That is how the categories are available in the first place, but we are not aware of them until we reflect on the products of synthesis, i.e. consciousness and perception.

(Here again is part pf my question): I forget this minute how he puts it but basically I think it is that there is some aspect of the intuitions -their form- that has the possibility of fitting into the categories and then the categories unite them.

(Dr Ross:) This overlooks the existence and activity of synthesis, which leaves out Kant's mature theory.  So I'm not sure what the reference in Kant would be for your citation. [my later note: I will have to look that up.]

(Me again:) Similarly there is some answer on how the categories can process the intuitions.

(Dr Ross:) Synthesis uses the categories to "process" the manifold of sensation so as to produce consciousness and experience.  If "intuition" implies awareness, then the application of the term must be moved from the given manifold to the product of synthesis.  This is a challenge in Kant scholarship.

(Me): It seemed to me that immediate non intuitive knowledge can be the source of this unity [of the intuitions]. That is the deeper source of knowledge that unites both the senses and the categories. 

Dr Ross: Again, there are different issues.  How the categories are available in the first place is different from what they are used for.  Kant's argument "from the possibility of experience" means that the categories must be available in order to be used.   And one thing that must also be available is the "unity of apperception," according to which synthesis constructs consciousness.  That will be "the source of this unity," and it will be, like the categories themselves, non-intuitive.

Note that Kant believed the "availability" of the categories was covered by his "metaphysical deduction," i.e. that the categories are artifacts of the forms of logic.  This was grossly insufficient for what was needed.  To get from the form of conditional propositions in logic to the concept of causality you need, well, the concept of causality.  Kant can't get that rabbit out of that hat.  Modern logic, for all its faults, clarified that -- although the Stoics had done it already.  Kant has similar problems in morality, thinking that moral imperatives will follow from the forms of logic also.  In all of that, even Platonism works better.

Yours truly,

KR

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think one of the very important aspects of Kelley Ross is that he shows how the Friesian school i not psychologism but rather depends on axioms that are known, but not known infallibly but can be defeated as per the idea of Popper of falsifiability. 

Robert E Lee and the Civil War

 In the letters of Robert E Lee you find the idea that if the whole issue had been to obey the Constitution of the USA there never would have been any conflict. But you find the exact same idea in General Grant. To both of these men the entire issue was this alone. The South held secession was a right. And even if that is not a part of the Constitution , still it was stated openly by the Virginia delegates to the Continental Congress].

However in terms of slavery, I think the welfare system in the USA is slavery forcing white people to work for blacks without compensation. So I do not think that anyone really objects to slaver. Rather slavery of blacks they object to. But slavery of white people is OK.

 But that is how things are in the West--with the newspapers advocating one kind of outrage after the other. First global cooling, then global warming. Then Climate change, then vaccines. One set of outrages after the other. That is the odd sort of mentality of the West. Every ten years or so, the absolute unchangeable morality changes from one thing to the other, and that other is also unchangeable while the first is forgotten and goes back to the regular state.

Rather I think that morality ought to be based on reason, not fads nor just "faith" which is often delusion.

Gravity and Quantum Entanglement

 Lemaitre I think was the first to notice the connection between Gravity and Quantum Entanglement. This later was called ER=EPR and by Susskind you see there is an approach in which there are worm holes between entangled states. But in a paper sometime after 1930 [after Lemaitre predicted the Big Bang] he wrote that only after there were enough quanta round could space time begin to exist.

 This was basically forgotten until Yaakov Beckstein saw that the area of a black hole is the same as its entropy. --suggesting that black holes have entropy which means that there is a connection between curved space and ensembles of entangled states.

[But in 1972, when he showed this, not one knew what the entangled states were.] Only much later did Susskind come along and show that ER [worm holes]= EPR [quantum entangled states]

bitul Torah

In the path of the Litvak yeshivot, you do not find an emphasis on what you would call secular learning. And that is for good reason. Since thee is a sin of "bitul Torah",[which is greatly emphasized in the chazal [sages]. ["bitul Torah" means not learning Torah when one can.]

They do see that learning a secular subject as a means to make a living is OK, but it is better to trust in God.

There is also an approach where wives of very serious learners decide  to help with making money along with the kollel check. 

This is all very admirable. It is good and proper to learn Torah with self sacrifice.

The only place where I differ is that some  subjects I believe are not secular at all but rather God's wisdom as revealed in the work of Creation.[Physics, Chemistry, etc. The natural sciences.]

Incidentally the best Litvak yeshivot I know about are Ponovitch and the places that were started by former students of Ponovitch.

music file z56

 z56 A minor  z56 nwc

Litvak Yeshivot

 I wanted to discuss my yeshiva experience along with my thought concerning Litvak Yeshivot.

I think that it would have been very difficult or perhaps impossible for me to come to any conception of what Torah is about without being in Shar Yeshuv [of Rav Friefeld] and at the Mir in NY [where I learned a lot from Rav Shmuel Berenbaum.] 

So you might think I should recommend Litvak yeshivot. However later disappoints somewhat damped my enthusiasm. 

But personal disappointments I figure ought not to dampen the reality that for true and authentic Torah the only possible address is a Litvak yeshiva based on the approach of the Gra and Rav Shach.

[And I should add here that in spite of my disappointments I still try to learn Torah when I can manage to grab a minute. And I still hold from the prime importance of learning Gemara and Tosphot.\

When the modern armies left and the cargo stopped arriving, the "Cargo Cult" was a religious attempt to reproduce the invocations and effect the continued blessing of the gods. Not surprisingly, it didn't work.]

 A lot of religious practice is from a phenomenon  noticed by Robert Sapolsky. He noted that pigeons are among the most superstitious of animals. You do not need to train them for this. They do it automatically. They do some kind of action before getting a piece of bread. They later when they are hungry, they will keep on doing tat same action endlessly until they get another piece of bread. Most of religious practice falls into this category. It is not from the realm of holiness nor from the Sitra Achra [Dark Side].It is just a natural phenomenon among people to think that some rituals will bring them their piece of bread.

But not all religious actions. Some is from the Dark Side. or from group think. They follow the heard thinking they will get the shiduch [match].

And on the opposite end of things, there is such a thing as sincere service of God. Not rituals, Actions and deeds that do truly unite one with the Divine.

The question one must always ask oneself is if his or her actions are really sincere, or or they like the pigeons? or perhaps, Heaven forbid, motivated by the Dark Side.

Rav Nachman wrote [LeM I I thinking [perek 25] דע כי האדם צריך להוציא את עצמו מן המדמה (Know that one must take oneself out of delusion) For too much religious rituals are from delusions. Cargo cult rituals. [The original Cargo Cult developed in New Guinea after World War II. During the war, the Melanesian locals, who lived at a mesolithic or neolithic level of culture, saw airplanes arrive and disgorge vast quantities of "cargo." They did not understand that these things had to be manufactured and that the airplanes themselves were artifacts. They believed that the planes and the cargo were gifts from the gods, brought down to earth by ritual invocations. There were incidents where the crew members of aircraft were murdered because the locals thought they were no more than supernumeraries to the divine operation. When the modern armies left and the cargo stopped arriving, the "Cargo Cult" was a religious attempt to reproduce the invocations and effect the continued blessing of the gods. Not surprisingly, it didn't work.]

z53 musicfile

 z53 A minor  z53 nwc

That is to say a woman who is married is the person with whom adultery is possible. Both for her and the adulterer. But it is not possible to have adultery with an unmarried woman. See Chronicles I in the second perek, verse 46

 Adultery means not to have sex with a married woman , but does not mean a man can not have many wives [or even girl friends.] For example in Chronicles I in the second perek, verse 46 we find Caleb ben Yefuna had a few wives and a few girl friends. And most rishonim go with this. [See the Ramban/Nahmanides and the Raavad.] The Rambam however forbids a girl friend but only as an isur asey איסור עשה [a negative command derived from a positive.] But all other Rishonim go with the Ramban that it is allowed.

[

by saying the words one can come to understanding.

There is a way to learn Physics and Mathematics even if one is not talented. See the LeM of Rav Nahman volume I perek 12. על ידי אמצעות הדיבור יכולים לבא  לתבונות התורה לעומקה. "By means of the word, one can come to the understanding of Torah to its very depths." That means that by saying the words one can  come to understanding. Even if very talented people in these subjects do not need that approach, still this method can help everyone get better. 

[Similar to Conversations of Rav Nahman 76. This idea is also mentioned in the Sefer HaMidot of Rav Nahman in the perek on Learning.]

Izhak bn Avraham empasized review along with just saying the words aand going on. That is that one sould review after finishing a whole chapter or book. To listen and learn from an expert from someone who knows the subject well is important as mentioned in the book of Rav Nachman that since we have lost the doing, at least we should hang on to the hearing.

z55 music file

 z55 A minor midi z55 nwc 

Wisdom of the Greeks

 Wisdom of the Greeks is disparaged in the Gemara. One fellow asked R. Ishmael when to learn it [after he had already gone through the whole Torah.] Answer: when it is neither day nor night as it says "You shall think in the Law day and night."

So for Ibn Pakuda and the Rambam to hold that learning Physics and Metaphysics is important and even a part of Torah, it takes a jump of faith in the Rishonim [mediaeval authors].

Otherwise looking at the face value definition of "wisdom of the Greeks" would seem to refer to these very same subjects.

But I must add here that it has never been a problem for me to go with the rishonim [mediaeval authors] even when they seem to differ from the simple explanation of the Gemara. 

[I was thinking to show why the Rishonim diverge from the simple explanation of the Gemara. But first I would like to say that it is best to have simple faith. After having faith, it is good to have support for faith. Reasons are also good for understanding in what direction you want your faith to follow. After all one has control over what he believes to some degree. After all you can not  believe that you can skip and jump to the moon. But there are many other cases where you can rationally choose your beliefs.[when evidence is not conclusive and you can choose where the weight of the evidence goes.]

Ibn Pakuda and other rishonim hold Physics and Metaphysics are part of Torah. Why? Because they explain the "Work of the Divine Chariot and the Work of Creation"  as referring to these two subjects.

(The "Work of the Divine Chariot and the Work of Creation" are called "great things" and "the discussions of Abyee and Rava" are called small things. [R. Yochanan ben Zakai was praised for knowing these things ]) 

Dr. Kelley Ross shows that all one needs to reconcile Friesian philosophy with Relativity is Kant's Empirical Realism.

In terms of Relativity, I have to think this over but right now it seems to me that it is sad that the New Friesian School of Leonard Nelson seems to have diverged from Fries. [On the other hand Nelson wanted to be safe from accusations of ‘psychologism’ [note 1] that were thrown at Fries. So he kept the Friesian structure but held the categories are a priori as being not sense based and not reason based (immediate non intuitive) in a strictly axiomatic way.[And that fact of not being based on the senses is what makes it a priori thus in keeping with Kant] So you can see the motivation of Nelson. But it seems to have led to wrong conclusions. Dr. Kelley Ross shows that all one needs to reconcile Friesian philosophy with Relativity is Kant's Empirical Realism.

After all, Fries held that the categories of Kant do not have to be a priori. [Contra Kant]. Rather they can be justified in away that is not by reason nor by  the senses. but by "immediate non intuitive knowledge.". And this point seems to have been missed by Nelson who held that Relativity and especially GR (General Relativity) were just not right. And in a very ironic way it was Reichenbach who held strongly of Relativity and defended it by means of dividing Kant's apriori into two. One is the normal necessary apriori not based on observation. The other is subject to modification by empirical evidence.--Isn't that exactly Fries's approach exactly?!

.

[note 1] the mistake of identifying non-psychological with psychological entities. For instance, philosophers who think that logical laws are not psychological laws would view it as psychologism to identify the two] 

Matisyahu [the father of Judah the Maccabi] broke the statue of Antiochus because of the problem of idolatry. And in the world of Reform Judaism there is a remarkable lack of idolatry.

The major reason that Matisyahu [the father of Judah the Maccabi] broke the statue of Antiochus was the problem of idolatry. Not national identity. Not religious freedom.

For some reason this problem of idolatry does not seem to be much of a problem to most people--even though it is the most fundamental principle in the Torah. You can certainly see plenty of idolatry in the religious world [which is certainly the reason the Gra signed the famous letter of excommunication]. At least in the world of Reform Judaism there is a remarkable lack of idolatry [even though  I can see other problems there.]

Robert E Lee

 Robert E Lee was in Washington D.C. to testify at Congress. During that time one of his former slaves, Amanda Parks, came to visit him, but just missed him since he had just left for Virginia. So she wrote to him. She asked him if he is angry with her. He answered, "I do not know  why you should ask if I am angry with you. I am not aware of your having done anything which would give me offence. And I hope you would not say or  do anything what was wrong .While you lived at Arlington\ you behaved very well..."That letter says volumes about the amazing character of Robert E Lee. It is tragic that people step on his memory that do not nor ever could measure up to his boot  straps.

I might mention here that Arlington was owned by Robert E Lee, but during the war it was confiscated by the Northern authorities to make it into a graveyard.

My question and the answer of Dr. Kelley Ross. [His answer is that synthesis is not a function of non intuitive immediate knowledge. But I guess my thought was "Who is the user?" Who is doing the synthesis?" {The person who has this knowledge and who does the synthesis.] }

Dear Dr. Ross, ..... Immediate non-intuitive knowledge does the job of unification. But I would like to ask if you agree with this. ... Kant wants to show that our intuitions [things that we see or hear] can only have unity if the categories (where, how, when) unite them. But the doubt is how does this work? If I go into a field and collect flowers and put them into a basket, the basket puts them together-- but does not make them a unity.

Kant answers this question by showing that intuitions have to have the capability to be able to be united by the categories. And he shows that the categories can only unite concepts and intuitions but not make them out of scratch. So he shows that both require the other. The categories and the intuitions are dependent one on the other.

The question is this still seems to leave the flowers in the basket. So I am thinking that this must be one of reasons for the principle that there is a deeper source of knowledge, non intuitive immediate knowledge that unites the categories with the intuitions. [That is the idea of the Kant-Friesian School]

 Dear Mr. Rosenblum,

Kant's idea of unity involves the categories, but only because the categories are used in synthesis.  So the unity of consciousness, or the unity of experience, is the result of an activity.  When the activity stops, then consciousness and synthesis stop.  As in sleep.

Sleep is an issue overlooked by all the Rationalists and Empiricists.  Only Locke seems to have noticed, when he answered Descartes by saying that he had not "thought" at all last night.  But even that wasn't enough.  Sleep would stop the flood of sensory input, but neither Locke nor any Empiricist addressed how that would happen.  Indeed, nobody could explain how you could be hearing the refrigerator running all night, but normally not be aware of it.  Even while you're awake.  That the mind choses, preconsciously, what to admit to consciousness is a psychological truth never noticed by philosophers.

Not even by Kant.  But, because of Kant's theory of synthesis, an explanation was ready at hand, if needed.

Non-intuitive immediate knowledge is really a different issue.  To the extent that "categories" like cause or substance are known non-intuitively, then they are in fact available for what Kant wants in synthesis.  But Kant was not very clear how that works.  He was emerging from his earlier thinking that synthesis was a conscious activity, involving concepts.  However, consciousness is produced spontaneously, and the forms that it embodies are used without awareness.  We notice things like time, cause, or the duration of substances on reflection.

"Concepts" and "intuitions" do not on the ground need to be united, because synthesis has united them already.  Further action, consciously, will match further concepts to experience, but that is a fallible process.  

[I should add here that Kant has the imagination is what is causing synthesis. [CPR 78/B103]--I think that is where it is. [Might I suggest that is a round about way to talk about the soul.] (This in Kant is the level that is before or under consciousness]. It is imagination in Kant which produces  consciousness.] 

I also wanted to add that the categories are exactly what Fries thought were not apriori but empirical and subject to revision. And that left him vulnerable to the attack of "psychologism." That attack missed him, Still this accusation continued even up to Leonard Nelson who also was attacked for the same reason.

In the West it is not known that one has a connection with one's parents.

 In the West it is not known that one has a connection with one's parents. But as you can see in Torah that this connection is not determinate of everything.  [that is to say if they command one to disobey  a negative commandment that has karet attached to it they must not be listened to. [You can see this in Naphtali Troup. A great sage in the time of Rav Haim of Brisk that simply did not get to be as well known, but also very deep. חידושי הגרנ''ט.

That is the legal aspect. However in a deeper sense clearly one should get an idea of what kind of parents he or she has. If they are wicked then it makes no sense to obey them. [That is not written into law which makes the only exception as when they are crazy.]

Why do I bring this up? Because I wanted to point out  an important idea of Isaac Luria that one's inner light comes from the mother and outer light from the father. That is to say the connection with one's mother is more felt since it is internal. But it is the light of one's father that provides the outer light which is the protective shield around one. So one simply does not notice it until it is gone.

So my feeling is that people are not as aware as they ought to be about their inner connection and outer shield that they have from their parents.

Reason and Freedom

 In Enlightenment thought Reason and Freedom are always linked. The trajectory of history is always supposed to go towards more freedom. This seems like a mistake. I saw what happens in NY when there is total freedom for everyone and absolutely no government control--during a blackout. This maybe has not happened recently so people forget what total freedom from government means. Even with little government control I saw in the Ukraine. When the police are not motivated and sit in their station relaxing--I got a severe taste of what happens not just when there is no government but little government.

The only reason I can see that people think this is good is they have never had to live through these sort of surrealistic nightmares 

music z52

 z52 A Minor  z52 nwc

Rav Shach [Laws of Peah 2:11]

In the Torah there is an obligation to leave the corner of one's field of grain. That is called Peah. The Yerushalmi [The Gemara written in Israel], asks what if the first stalk that is cut was then burned. Rav Shach [Laws of Peah 2:11] explains this question to be based on a previous doubt of the Gemara if the first stalk that was harvested can be made into peah. The Gemara itself answers thus: Since it makes other talks obligated, it itself can not be obligated.

So the order of the Gemara would have to be thus: Can the first stalk be made into peah? And if you say yes then if it is burned then does one have to reap another stalk for the field to be obligated in peah. Then the Gemara answers the first question in the negative. That stalk can not become peah. So automatically we know the answer to the second question.

I can see the idea of the Gemara's question what if the first stalk is burned? You can find something like this in reading the Megilah."One who is obligated can cause others to fulfill their obligation." That is what it  seems the Gemara must mean. but on the other side of thing you can say lets say Grace After Meals for the sake of someone who has eaten bread though you have not.. But at any rate, you can see the question of the Gemara. If that first stalk causes the obligation  then if it is burned you would need to reap a new stalk..

There are definitions here. Poor means someone with no money a period of time. Poor does not mean anyone asking for money. In fact the Rambam has a long essay about the evil of the heads of the yeshivot that ask for charity in Pirkei Avot perek 4 mishna 3. 

deeper source of knowledge that is neither based on reason nor the senses. See: An Enquiry Concerning Hume's Misunderstanding

 Dr Michael Huemer has brought together arguments and added his own to show knowledge can not be based only on sense perception and not only on reason. Thus you would think that knowledge needs both,-- or perhaps a better approach is that of Dr Kelley Ross [the Kant- Fries School of thought] that there is a deeper source of knowledge that is neither based on reason nor the senses.

It occurred to me that this might very well answer a question in the Critique of Pure Reason where Kant shows that there must be a connection between the categories [of pure reason] and the sense perception data that comes in. [That he calls the Transcendental Deduction.] Yet it has been a source of difficulty to see that just because something Must Be So, why should it be so? [I mean that the data from the senses must be ordered by Reason,-- but how?

I think Dr Kelley Ross based on Kant, Fries, and Leonard Nelson shows this well.

[Hegel thinks that  Being leads up to Logos.  That is the structure of his whole system. [like Plotinus] So he surely believes there is this connection, but he has a different answer --that even sense perception is thought. His idea of what "thought" is a wider than the Hume definition that it is only what can be derived by definitions. You can see this approach in Cunningham in his thesis in 1910. But more than that, you might note that Hume's limitation on reason is assumed, but never proved. [as Bryan Caplan noted] (in: An Enquiry Concerning Hume's Misunderstanding ). He just says over and over that reason alone can only tell us about self contradictions of deductions from axioms. Something he learned from Euclid. As Kant showed that is not true. There are apriori truths not based on definitions. It does seem hard to see why it took such a long time for the implications of Fries and Nelson to be put together in a systematic way by Kelley Ross.--but I guess that is just the way things turned out. 

The implication of all this is simple--it gives justification of faith. And it also shows the approach of the mediaevals -that reason tells us what to believe in. [Not that there is just faith and reason in the Middle Ages, but that reason tells us what to believe in. ]

See Maverick Philosopher who hold the same way but not in so many words.

z50 music file

 z50 D Minor

I have never been very happy about Communism.

Even though there is some debate about China --especially due to their claim on the South China Sea and Taiwan I have to to say that I have never been very happy about Communism. But a lot depends on your starting point. If you are in a Western Democracy--Taiwan, Japan, Europe, England, the USA, Australia, etc. well then obviously a totalitarian communist dictatorship is a step down. But if one is in a situation of chaos and breakdown of civilization then you need some system that can bring order and peace even if it is totalitarian. I discovered this in the Ukraine where everyone said that things were better under the USSR than now.

So there is some element of the deception of the Zohar

I can see that in Torah also there us the legal aspect Gemara, and the spiritual.

The thing about the spiritual aspect is that  it has the highest danger of delusion. And in Torah there were books like the Sefer Hayetzira and mystics. The problem that the Sitra Achra, the Dark Side,  that gets mixed up in this area. And when it comes to "spiritual" things, it is hard to now what is from the realm of holiness and what is from the Dark Side. 

You can have great saints [tzadikim] that serve God through personal  fasting and prayer, like the Ari, the Gra. Rav Nahman, still the fact that they believed in the Zohar means there is a certain element that gets mixed up with them. After all the Zohar can not be from R. Shimon ben Yochai since on every few pages is contained the phrase עם כל דא מתורגם מן עם כל זה--"although" in the time of R Shimon ben Yochai was אף על פי או אף על גב. The  עם כל דא מתורגם מן עם כל זה is a medieval invention by the family of translators --the Ibn Tibon family.  So there is some element of the deception of the Zohar that gets mixed up with the good. Most people involved in mysticism are not spiritual but delusional

John Locke and Montesquieu, the American system of Justice

I wish I could share with others the feeling of being astounded realizing that the American system of Justice  which finds some middle ground between freedom and equality--which are after all exact opposites. [If you force everyone to be equal then no-one is free. If everyone is free then immediately no one is equal because some fail and some excel.] 

I wonder from where this system comes from? I know the founding fathers studied John Locke and Montesquieu and the Roman republic and the Athenian Democracy. But I also began to see that it was highly based on the English system. But I could see little in philosophy that could result in such a system. It seemed piecemeal. Ad Hoc. Rather than based on John Locke, the English system was explained by John Locke after it was already in place especially after the Glorious Revolution.

[Plato certainly never recommended such a system. Rather his system resembled many aspects of Sparta but with most of the brutality taken out. The Roman Republic  had  two central bodies of authority, the  the Plebeians and the Senate, [as reflected in the sign of Rome SPQR ] . But that was just as Ad Hoc. The people were given  authority and the tribunes in order to stop the disintegration of Rome. There was no theory behind it. There was no theory behind the Magna Carta nor the Provisions of Oxford. Only after the fact, did it become clear that this form of government meant freedom and human flourishing.

one is not supposed to worship an intermediate.

We know one is not supposed to worship an intermediate. And the Rambam considers that to be the main prohibition of idolatry. So it is easy nowadays to see the reason for the signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication. I can understand that at the time of the herem/ excommunication it was not clear to most people what the problem was. So most people ignored the herem (excommunication) that the Gra signed. But\ nowadays it is abundantly clear.

[Even Rav Nahman mentions this important principle in the LeM vol I perek 62. One is not supposed  to worship an intermediate. So one could ask on why Rav Nahman seems to contradict himself in terms of the need to a "tzadik." I am not sure how to answer this, but I still feel that Rav Nahman himself was not included in the herem, so I feel more or less at ease in learning what is possible from his writings.

Attitudes. One is total belief like when one is a child. Then skepticism like when one gets to college and doubts everything. The higher naivety is in between. The Goldie Locks approach. Not too hot, not too cold.

 In the study of history there is something called "the higher naivety". There are two other attitudes. One is total belief like when one is a child. )Then skepticism like when one gets to college and doubts everything. (as some say about Homer. They say you can not learn anything from Homer about the age before the Greek States.] Like chariots. Some thought they were an anachronism. But later it turned out from archeology that there were chariots in the time of the war on Troy. ) The higher naivety is in between. It is to believe unless one can not. What can make something not believable? Self contradictions. Or external evidence. [You might see some of Hegel here about synthesis.]

Similar in philosophy there is an attitude to try to take apart. Then there is the sort of reading called "charity"--that is if a great philosopher writes something that does not seem to make sense, to try to make sense of it and say he meant something that is more sensible. (Michael Huemer is with "He meant what he said'' view.))Then there is "He meant what he said" but to try to find some way of making sense of it.

This is  how many other issues can be approached. The Goldie Locks approach. Not too hot, not too cold. But just right.  In Rav Nahman' writings there are amazing insights and other things that are less than believable. {Maybe he himself was saying these in a half humorous fashion, or perhaps not well understood. So you throw out everything? I say not. You leave the great insights and ignore what seems less well thought out. {It is characteristic of Western thought to be "either or." It is all right or all wrong.. I tend to be in the middle. Some is right and some needs to be ignored.

Then I got to places that had claimed to be accepting "anyone who wanted to learn Torah." What they meant was "anyone with rich American parents."

 One thing you can notice in Rav Nahman of Breslov [i.e. his books] is the idea that there is always an ''ietza" some sort of advice that can help for every situation. Though he never actually says this in so many words, still the idea is implicit in everything he writes.

How to find the right bit of advice that can help you is of course the problem.

For example the Tikun Klali [saying the ten psalms to correct sexual sin] is actually called this by name: "the general correction". [In reference to the LeM vol I perek 19]

But when Rav Nahman uses the idea of correction he does not mean it just in terms of sin but actually correction of problems. 

And I tend to think in these terms myself after learning Rav Nahman's books. I can see his point.

[Sefer HaMidot especially.]

It is well known that he held that "Hitbodadut" is a general practice that can help. That is--to talk to God as one talks with a friend--in one's own language. No rituals or formulas of prayer.

I wanted especially to mention one bit of advice that actually is in a mishna כל המקבל עליו עול תורה מעבירים ממנו עול מלכות ועול רך ארץ For anyone that accepts on himself the yoke of Torah, there is removed from him the yoke of government and the yoke of the way of the earth. 

That is to say: I have noticed something about the Litvak path of learning Gemara Rashi and Tosphot along with Musar that fulfill this idea of Rav Nahman. This path of straight Torah I have noticed tends to have this aspect to it of removing from one many of the other kinds of worries and difficulties that people encounter. {I do not learn Torah all day as I should because I was  kicked our of every beit midrash where I sat down to learn. At first it was the Lakewood kollel in LA where they told my wife to get rid of me because because I was learning Torah without getting paid. Then I got to places that had claimed to be accepting "anyone who wanted to learn Torah." What they meant was "anyone with rich American parents." So I have found the major obstacle to learning Torah is the hypocrisy of those that claim to be doing so for its own sake, not for money. There is a temptation to discount the value of Torah because of this> I tend to say instead that Torah is great and holy, but people that use Torah to make money and dress religiously to show how holy they are are obstacles to true Torah.  

 

 z51 D minor

z50

z48

See Isaac of Aco's account of his encounter with Moshe De'Leon. De Leon had been selling a new book page by page that no one had heard of, the "Zohar", which he claimed he had found in an ancient manuscript.

 I know that people have an inherent curiosity about the nature of reality. They might look at philosophy and find word puzzles. Or they might look at the Zohar, and find that it is a highly problematic source of information. [note 1]

Even if they want to look at Physics, they find that layman's books are often worse than useless. They do not know how to get to the real thing.

For this reason I have often mentioned that learning Physics is possible for everyone. No one has to be a genius. What scares people off is the intimating system of tests. And these tests are important on one hand --to know who really knows -- as opposed to those who imagine that they know. But the downside of tests is people with inherent curiosity, but not much talent get discouraged.

I hope to show that Physics and Math are available to everyone by the idea in tractate Shabat page 63 לעלם ליגמר אינש אע''ג דמשכח ואע''ג דלא ידע מאי קאמר Always one  finish (the whole book at least once) and then go back and explain it -even though he forgets, and even though he does not know what he is saying.)

[note 1] See Isaac of Aco's account of his encounter with Moshe De'Leon. De Leon had been selling a new book page by page that no one had heard of, the "Zohar," which he claimed he had found in an ancient manuscript. [He was never clear how it got into is possession.] So when a great sage from Israel arrived in Spain on a visit, people asked him to go and speak with De Leon and find out from where this book came from. This was Isaac from Aco. At that time deLeon was not in his hometown and Isaac of Aco went to see him. When he asked DeLeon, De Leon said, "I have the original manuscript at home and when I get there I will show you, or may God strike me dead!" Sadly enough, God struck him dead before he got back home. But Isaac of Aco went anyway and asked his wife about it and offered to her a very large sum of money to show him the manuscript. She swore to him that there was no such thing. She observed her husband sitting in his room and writing it "from his head" (that is the phrase she used to describe it.)

Of course it is clear that he had written a copy from himself in order to make extra copies from. That is how when people came to ask for the same page that someone else had bought, deLeon could write out that same page word from word.

And Rav Yaakov Emden made a study of this subject, and decided that some parts were probably based on ancient sources. 

I might mention that the עם כל דא ["although"] phrase in the Zohar bothers me. In the time of the Mishna and Gemara one could say although by אף על פי or  אף על גב. But during the Middle Ages it was noticed that these phrase are extremely awkward. So the Ibn Tibon family came up with a better way עם כל זה while עם כל דא is the translation into Aramaic. So the Zohar was written during the Middles Ages. QED

 

Here is a presentation about the two infrared telescopes Spitzer and James Web. Spitzer no longer is operational. James Web is about to be launched.

 

Rittenhouse

 Rittenhouse was acquitted on all accounts. He had gone to protect store owners and stores from being looted and destroyed as when happening all over the USA. Then he was attacked and he defended himself. I can not see why this even went to trial. One glance at the video should have been enough. He was knocked down an a guy was pulling out a gun to shoot him, and so he shot before he was killed. How much more obvious could this be?

Well the answer seems to be that too much of the judicial system in the USA has gotten politized. Instead of justice,  what is pursued is what is politically correct. 

So while on one hand I am happy that justice was served, still I am thinking that this whole trial shows that the justice system in the USA needs to get back on track.[One suggestion is this people making false accusations should be punished by the law. They should at least be liable. That should even apply to prosecutors.] 

infrared telescopes and Philip Rosenblum-Rosten

Two infrared telescopes. Spitzer and James Web. The Spitzer was the first in space. Now the James Webb is about to be deployed. Why should not Philip Rosenblum get some credit for being the inventor of the first infrared telescope? 

Spitzer was operated by NASA, JPL/Cal Tech. named after the person who suggested the idea of a space telescope and a very good scientist. James Webb has not yet gone into operation yet.[James Webb was the administrator of NASA.] I am just wondering why the name Philip Rosenblum is never mentioned with his own invention. Something he did not just suggest but actually made. Should that not count for something? Would it not be like crediting someone who thought about an electric light bulb instead of the person who actually made it-- Edison? Do you not usually give credit to the person that made the first thing, not those who thought how nice it would be to have it. The two brothers (Wright) that made an airplane get the credit, not people who thought about how nice it would be to fly?

Even though Isabella promoted Columbus, she is not given credit for the discovery of America, rather the person who actually did it, Columbus. Who gets the credit for Mozart symphonies, the musical director of the orchestra in Vienna or Mozart? 

I realize credit does not always go to who deserves it. Some theorems in Mathematics get named for those who used them or introduced them to the public rather than the inventor. Not that the second person was trying to steal credit. Rather it was just the way things worked out. Still I think that some effort ought to be made to give credit to whom credit is due.

[Maybe I could suggest that the next generation of Infrared telescopes be called on the name of Philip Rosenblum? This way one dos not detract from the credit due to others, but still gives credit to the actual inventor.]

The Jerusalem Talmud asks about that first stalk.

 If you have the peah [edge of the field.] which is what one must leave to the poor. It is at least 1/60. The first stalk that is cut makes that obligation come into play. [He can not just say, "The whole field is peah." It has to be after something has been reaped.] The Jerusalem Talmud asks about that first stalk. Is is also obligated in peah? [That means we know that it first has to be cut. And then he could make the rest of the field peah. But if he wanted to, could he then say that first stalk is also peah? Answer: No. The reason is it makes everything else obligated, and so it itself is not. And so it is obligated in truma and maasar (gifts to the kohen/priest and Levite). 

Then let's say he goes ahead, and cuts through the whole field. [He was supposed to leave 1/60 standing for the poor.] The first stalk of the 1/60 makes the obligation of peah go to the reaped sheaves. (According to Peah perek II, mishna 5) The question is: Is that first stalk of the 1/60 obligated in peah? Answer: No. It is like the first stalk of the 59/60. [I would like to add here the "hava amina" of he gemara. That is why would this be a question in the first place? Should it not be clear that the case is the same as the first stalk that was reaped? Answer: the first stalk of the 1/60 is now cut. And therefore ought to be obligated in peah. This is different than the first stalk of the 59/60 which caused an obligation on the standing stalks, but it itself is not standing. So then perhaps this ought to be the final answer? No. Because its being cut is simultaneous with the obligation coming on the reaped sheaves. That might be the difference. However you can still argue before it was cut, it was standing and at that time the obligation was on the standing stalks. After it was cut, the obligation is on the reaped sheaves . What makes it not obligated is that it is like the first stalk of the 59/60. It makes obligated and so is not obligated.] 

The question is could he make the 1/60 still to be peah? Or is now that whole part of the field obligated in truma and maasar? 

I realized while coming back from the sea that this is the point of Rav Shach. He asks on the Rambam that writes "If he reaps the whole field [even though he was supposed to leave 1/60], he still gives peah. And if he gives most of what was harvested as peah, that is not obligated in truma and maasar." That means to say that the second he transgressed and reaped the first stalk of the1/60, by transgressing the command to leave a part of the field to the poor that causes the obligation of peah to go on the reaped part (since he can no longer give from the non-reaped part the proper amount). And then, that 1/60 part is obligated in truma and maasar. And even if he gives it to the poor, it is just a present and not considered abandoned (which would be not obligated in truma and maasar), it still is obligated in truma and maasar and can not not become peah. 

________________________________________________________________________________

  פאה  is what one must leave to the poor. It is at least אחד ממאה. The first stalk that is cut makes that obligation חל. [He can not say, "the whole field is פאה." It has to be after something has been reaped.] The גמרא ירושלמי asks about that first stalk. Is is also obligated in פאה? [That means we know that it first has to be cut. And then he could make the rest of the field פאה. But if he wanted to could he then say that first stalk is also פאה? Answer של הגמרא: No. The reason is it makes everything else obligated, and so it itself is not חייב. And so it is obligated in תרומה and מעשר  . Then let's say he goes ahead and cuts through the whole field. The first stalk of the חלק אחד מששים makes the obligation of פאה go to the reaped sheaves According to פאה פרק ב' משנה ה') Then  the גמרא ירושלמי asks, "Is that first stalk of the חלק אחד מששים obligated in פאה? Answer: No. It is like the first stalk of the  חמישים ותשעה מששים. I would like to add here the הווא אמינא" of הגמרא. That is why would this be a question in the first place? Should it not be clear that the case is the same as the first stalk that was reaped? Answer: the first stalk of the חלק אחד מששים is now cut. And therefore ought to be obligated in פאה. This is different than the first stalk of the חמישים ותשעה מששים which caused an obligation on הקמה standing stalks, but it itself is not standing. So then perhaps this ought to be the final answer? No. Because its being cut is simultaneous with the obligation coming on the reaped sheaves. That might be the difference. However you can still argue before it was cut it was standing and at that time the obligation was on the standing stalks. After it was cut the obligation in fact is on the reaped sheaves at the time the obligation is on the reaped sheaves. What makes it not obligated בפאה is that it is like the first stalk of the  חמישים ותשעה מששים. It makes obligated and so is not obligated. My question is could he make the אחד מששים still to be פאה? Or is now that whole part of the field obligated in תרומה and מעשר? I realized while coming back from the sea that this is the point of רב שך. He asks on the רמב''ם that writes "If he reaps the whole field,  he still gives פאה. And if he gives most of what was harvested as פאה, that is not obligated in תרומה and מעשר ." That means to say that the second he פשע and reaped the first stalk on the אחד מששים ,  that causes the obligation of פאה to go on the reaped part since he can no longer give from the non-reaped part the proper amount. And then that  אחד מששים part is obligated in תרומה and מעשר . And even if he gives it to the poor, it is just a present and not considered abandoned , it still is obligated in תרומה and מעשר and can not not become פאה. 

פאה זה מה שצריך להשאיר לעניים. זה לפחות אחד ממאה. הגבעול הראשון שנחתך הופך את המחויבות הזו לחל. [הוא לא יכול לומר "כל השדה פאה". זה חייב להיות אחרי שמשהו נקצר.] הגמרא ירושלמי שואל על הגבעול הראשון. האם חייב גם בפאה? [זה אומר שאנחנו יודעים שקודם כל צריך לחתוך אותו. ואז הוא יכול לעשות את שאר השדה פאה. אבל אם הוא רוצה היה יכול אז לומר שגבעול ראשון הוא גם פאה? תשובה של הגמרא: לא. הסיבה היא שזה הופך את כל השאר לחייב, ולכן זה עצמו לא חייב. ולכן חייב בתרומה ומעשר . ואז נניח שהוא ממשיך וחותך את כל השדה. הגבעול הראשון של חלק אחד מששים גורם לחובת הפאה ללכת לאלומות הנקצרות לפי פאה פרק ב' משנה ה') ואז שואל הגמרא ירושלמי, "האם הגבעול הראשון של חלק אחד מששים חייב בפאה? תשובה: לא. זה כמו הגבעול הראשון של החמישים ותשעה מששים. אני רוצה להוסיף כאן את הווא אמינא" של הגמרא. לכן זו תהיה שאלה מלכתחילה? האם לא צריך להיות ברור שהמקרה זהה לגבעול הראשון שנקטף? תשובה: הגבעול הראשון של חלק אחד מששים נחתך כעת. ולפיכך צריך לחייב בפאה. זה שונה מהגבעול הראשון של החמישים ותשעה מששים שגרם להתחייבות על גבעולים עומדים, אבל הוא עצמו אינו עומד. אז אולי זו צריכה להיות התשובה הסופית? לא, כי גזירתו בד בבד עם החיוב הבא על האלומות הקצורות. יכול להיות שזה ההבדל. עם זאת אתה עדיין יכול להתווכח לפני שנחתך זה היה עומד ובאותו זמן החיוב היה על הגבעולים העומדים. לאחר שנכרת החיוב הוא למעשה על האלומות הנקצרות בזמן שהחיוב הוא על האלומות הנקצרות. מה שהופך את זה לא חייב בפאה זה שזה כמו הגבעול הראשון של החמישים ותשעה מששים. זה עושה מחויב ולכן אינו מחויב. השאלה שלי היא האם הוא יכול לגרום לאחד מששים להיות פאה? או שמא עכשיו כל החלק הזה של השדה חייב בתרומה ומעשר? הבנתי  שזו הנקודה של רב שך. שואל על הרמב''ם שכותב "אם קוטף את כל השדה עדיין נותן פאה. ואם נותן רוב מה שנקטף כפאה, אין חייב בתרומה ומעשר". כלומר לומר שבשני הוא פשע וקצר גבעול ראשון על אחד מששים, שגורם לחובת פאה ללכת על החלק הנקצר כיון שאינו יכול עוד לתת מהחלק הלא נקצר את הכמות הראויה. ואחר כך חלק אחד מששים חייב בתרומה ומעשר . ואפילו אם נותן לעני, זה רק מתנה ואינו נחשב נטוש, עדיין חייב בתרומה ומעשר ואינו יכול להיות פאה.

Being silent to one's insult

 In the LeM of Rav Nahman in vol I:6 is brought: Being silent to one's insult is the main repentance on one's sins.[This is simple to understand if you know the principle of repentance which is to accept not to repeat the sin. But a sin can be an isur asey איסור עשה (a prohibition that comes from a positive command), a lav לאו (prohibition), a lav that has karet לאו שיש בו כרת (prohibition that has the penalty of being cut off from one's people), a lav that has hilul hashem לאו שיש בו חילול השם (a prohibition that has the desecration of the Divine Name). For the last two simple repentance and Yom Kippur are not enough, one must receive afflictions in order for the repentance to b accepted. So Rav Nahman is saying here that being silent in the face of being insult is in place of other sorts of afflictions.

Later in vol II Rav Nahman says that this Torah lesson contains in it the intensions of Elul and that the intensions of Elul are a segulah סגולה [help] to find one's match.

I actually had a lot of trouble finding my match for a long time. I had tried every possible idea that I or anyone else could suggest.... Until one day I decided I was going to say that Torah lesson LeM vol I perek 6 every day and never stop until I would find my match. And that is what I did.  Every day for about a year until I fact I found my match.

And other thing I gained from that was the idea of silence. In that Torah lesson, silence in itself is praised, not just silence in the face of one's insult. 

music files from years ago (when I was a teenager) and some recent.

 z47 D Minor

orchestra [written a long time ago in my parent's home. In high school orchestra in in Idywild Music Camp we were playing Beethoven and Brahms so that obviously effected my style.]

piano [also written at my parents home. It is called piano because on that it was written but scored for organ.]

CHS 

mathematics  

This is a great title

i 69

b101

b98

b99

r3

s82

e15

Kant

 Kant wants to show that our intuitions [things that we see or hear] can only have unity if the categories (where, how, when) unite them. But the doubt is how does this work? If I go into a field and collect flowers and put them into a basket, the basket puts them together, but does not make them a unity.

Kant answers this question by showing that intuitions have to have the capability to be able to be united by the categories. [The forms of intuitions are in them, but the unity is contributed by the categories.] [Reason is in the things themselves. Otherwise they could not be interpreted as fitting into the categories. [note 1]] And he shows that the categories can only unite concepts and intuitions, but not make them out of scratch. So he shows that both require the other. The categories and the intuitions are dependent one on the other.

The question is this still seems to leave the flowers in the basket. So I am thinking that this must be one of reasons for the principle that there is a deeper source of knowledge, non intuitive immediate knowledge that unites the categories with the intuitions. [That is the idea of the Kant-Friesian School]

I might mention that there is plenty of debate about the B Deduction  of how the mind and body work together [intuitions and categories.] [It seems the B Deduction shows that space and time have to have structure that is able to be thought by the mind.] The other debate is whether intuitions have themselves some sort of knowledge in them besides the categories. In any case no scholars of Kant seem to take the Kant Fries approach. [Kant obviously did not. Rather this immediate non intuitive knowledge seems to answer the question.. And besides that Kant's own explanation seems to be "It must be true", that still leaves me wondering "How is it true?" I think the Friesian idea helps for that.

[It so happens that, even as Nelson tried to revive this idea,.]

I ought to mention that immediate non intuitive knowledge was conjectured for the sake of the dinge an sich. But it seems to help also for Kant's dilemma how categories of thought and sense perception relate. 

[I have mentioned that this is tremendously significant to my learning partner in Uman David Bronson and others but apparently no one has paid attention. See the site of Kelley Ross

[note 1]This is close to what Hegel says. Both Kant and Hegel are looking for something inside sensory perception that makes it amenable to being processed by the human mind. To Hegel the reason is that Logos Reason is in everything. See Plotinus. Kant's answer is different and still subject to debate.

Robert E Lee.

 I have been thinking about Robert E Lee. And it occurred to me to mention a few ideas. One is a retraction. I think that when Stonewall Jackson died, Lee did not think the South was lost. 

Next as to secession, even though the tenth ammendment looks to some degree as allowing it, still there is some doubt because the idea that all rights not granted by the Constitution to the Federal government are reserved for the states or to the people of the USA would mean any individual person could also secede from the Union.  So no one could be guilty of any crime because all he would need to say would be  "I secede from the Union." [Or you could argue that individuals are different than states for individuals are liable to punishment by the courts as brought in the Constitution. But there is no such mechanism for punishing states. Besides that, Virginia openly made the possibility of secession as a key condition for joining the Union in the first place.] 

Another point on the side of Lee is that the Constitution mentions citizens of the states and of the union itself. It seems one can be both! So Lee was right that he was a citizen of Virginia and thus bound by its laws--and its secession.

"It is possible to find God in everything." [LeM II: 44 and also I think II:87].

 I was at the nearby Breslov Na Nach place yesterday and some mentioned an idea  that kind of makes sense to me. At first I suggested the idea that is well known, "תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם" ("Learning Torah is equal to all the other mitzvot put together.") And this person is a working guy who as you can imagine finds it hard to be sitting and learning all day because of his responsibilities. He mentioned this idea of Rav Nahman of finding the good point in others and in oneself. And that situations with people often change so that sitting and learning is not always possible.

[He did not mention another idea of Rav Nahman but which I think is relevant here that, "It is possible to find God in everything." [LeM II: 44 and also I think II:87]. And this applies to me since I also have found that my goal of sitting and learning Torah just did not work out as well as I thought. 

The idea is brought at greater length in the LeM [of Rav Nahman] in a few other places that is based on the mishna in Pirkei Avot בעשרה מאמרות נברא העולם with ten statements the world was created. Nine of them are open and plain to see "God said..." [and in everything created by these nine statements the glory of God is revealed. ] But the tenth statement is hidden. It does not say "God said.." , rather just "In the beginning God created...". That is called the "Hidden Statement." Now even though it says "the whole world is full of his glory" still there are places where the glory of God does not reach as it says וכבודי לאחר לא אתן "I will not give of my glory to another".[The speaker in that verse is God]. But nothing can exist without the will of God to make it exist. So how do evil things and places have existence? That is by the hidden statement. So even when one has fallen into evil and evil places and from there one seeks God and tries to return to Him, then the glory of the hidden statement is revealed upon him.

[There is more to be discussed here, but I just got back from the sea and I would like to spend my time learning. So it is best for anyone reading this just to see in the LeM of Rav Nahman some of the places that are relevant to this like the LeM II:4.]

Capitalism lifts everyone out of poverty.

 It is a proven fact that democracy and prosperity go together. And it has been proven that socialism and repression, and poverty go together hand in hand.

 \Why is this? The question of "Why?"" never bothered me much since I assumed that no matter how brilliant a system may be conceived --if its end result is million of dead and an equality of poverty, then that system can not be right. [I mean what should it matter to a poor person in the USA the lives better than medieval kings? Capitalism lifts everyone out of poverty. The poorest of the poor in the USA have I phones and Nikes shoes and electricity and sanitation that medial kings could not have dreamed of.]

Even China never got out of poverty until it embraced a market economy, but with the control of the party that retains political control.--not market control.

[And I admit I can not see the attraction of Communism today. All one has to do is the compare a picture of any ordinary grocery store in the USA, with a picture of street block long lines in the USSR just to get a loaf of bread.]

Bikini Nuclear tests.

 Since I have not been able to spend much time on learning Torah --though I should overcome the difficulties. But in the meantime I wanted to mention my feeling the Bikini Nuclear tests. The people on those islands were evacuated but later brought back and assured that it was safe to return. They were test mice to see the effects of radiation poisoning. So if you think medical scientists would never use people are guinea pigs, think again. And that brings me to the non existent epidemic to cause people to take tests drugs (called by euphemism "vaccines.)  [Do yourself a bit of reading to understand the many years it takes to develop a real vaccine. There is no question that these are fakes.]

See the Conversations of Rav Nahman (Sichot HaRan) [of Breslov]. [paragraph 50.]

And I might mention that Dr Michael Huemer in one paper deals with the problems of political activists and all other sorts of people like doctors that think they they know more than they do. [In the named 

In Praise of Passivity

by Michael Huemer

 Political actors, including voters, activists, and leaders, are often ignorant of basic facts relevant to policy choices. Even experts have little understanding of the working of society and little ability to predict future outcomes. Only the most simple and uncontroversial political claims can be counted on. This is partly because political knowledge is very difficult to attain, and partly because individuals are not sufficiently motivated to attain it. As a result, the best advice for political actors is very often to simply stop trying to solve social problems, since interventions not based on precise understanding are likely to do more harm than good.

]