2.2.20
It is a odd thing about Leonard Nelson's diagrams. See https://my.fit.edu/~aberdein/Nelson.pdf on some of the recent history by a philosopher in Florida Dr Andrew Aberdein. Dr Kelley Ross [California] has his own expansion of the idea instead of a square he expands the method into a cube.
So on one hand you can argue that it simply is away to make his arguments clear. But you have to wonder. For example you have Feynman diagrams that are common in QFT. They are a device. But he thought that they also present how things actually are.
So perhaps there is a connection between logic principles and Geometry. And perhaps you could expand into higher dimensional Geometry or even Algebraic geometry. [That is kind of like Abstract Algebra, but a little different-- in that it deals with local things instead of global things, like Algebraic Topology.]
But you have to wonder if this is perhaps not such a great idea because after all Mathematics was thought to be reducible to Logic until Godel came along.
So on one hand you can argue that it simply is away to make his arguments clear. But you have to wonder. For example you have Feynman diagrams that are common in QFT. They are a device. But he thought that they also present how things actually are.
So perhaps there is a connection between logic principles and Geometry. And perhaps you could expand into higher dimensional Geometry or even Algebraic geometry. [That is kind of like Abstract Algebra, but a little different-- in that it deals with local things instead of global things, like Algebraic Topology.]
But you have to wonder if this is perhaps not such a great idea because after all Mathematics was thought to be reducible to Logic until Godel came along.
Based on the idea of Rav Nahman that there is even such a thing as Torah scholar who is a demon, the question is- how far can you take this? How far is there suspicion on anything they say. After all, if lets say you have a delicious chocolate Sunday ice cream, but mixed within is slight bit of arsenic? How good can that be? And the question ought to be asked,-- after it is known that this is not just in theory, but in fact in this very time and age now there are countless of victims. So the issue is very relevant.
My feeling is to follow the basic, authentic, straight path of the Gra and Rav Shach, and straight Musar. But it does not seem simple to do so, or what kind of "Birur" [sifting] is needed- even on a private level. One solution I have thought is to simply bury my head in the sand, and walk in the path of straight Torah as well as I can. Yet I feel there probably is something important about at least letting others know so at least others can be forewarned.[If I at least warn people, I do not have their blood on my hands. I guess that is the most I can do.] להרים מכשול מדרך עמי
My feeling is to follow the basic, authentic, straight path of the Gra and Rav Shach, and straight Musar. But it does not seem simple to do so, or what kind of "Birur" [sifting] is needed- even on a private level. One solution I have thought is to simply bury my head in the sand, and walk in the path of straight Torah as well as I can. Yet I feel there probably is something important about at least letting others know so at least others can be forewarned.[If I at least warn people, I do not have their blood on my hands. I guess that is the most I can do.] להרים מכשול מדרך עמי
Howard Bloom (in The Lucifer Principle) explained why people do jihad because of a social meme that gets hard wired into their mentality. Like an electric circuits board that before it is hardened in the oven can be rewired in a different configuration. But after it has become hardened, it can not be undone except by taking out all the wiring.
[In the Gemara this is called "Girsa DeYankusa" [learning of youth], i.e., what one learns when he or she is young sticks.]
So you have to try to get the wiring on your circuit board attached well before it get hardened.
And that applies I think even in the beginning of the day. To start with Musar. That is why I think it is good to start the day right at first with the whole page of the Levels of Man of Navardok (Madragat Haadam) about trust in God.
However one needs care to decide what values are in fact good. "There is a crowd that willingly follows anything that moves." Have courage. Stand on right principle.
Objective morality is possible to know by prima facie evidence. [Dr Michael Huemer goes into this.The point is open in the gemara that there are reasons for the commandments and they are knowable. So the commandments are not good because God said so, but they are God said so because they lead to good. The question in the Gemara is between R. Shimon ben Yocahi whther you go by the reason for the commands or by the written word. See Bava Metzia page 119.]
[In the Gemara this is called "Girsa DeYankusa" [learning of youth], i.e., what one learns when he or she is young sticks.]
So you have to try to get the wiring on your circuit board attached well before it get hardened.
And that applies I think even in the beginning of the day. To start with Musar. That is why I think it is good to start the day right at first with the whole page of the Levels of Man of Navardok (Madragat Haadam) about trust in God.
However one needs care to decide what values are in fact good. "There is a crowd that willingly follows anything that moves." Have courage. Stand on right principle.
Objective morality is possible to know by prima facie evidence. [Dr Michael Huemer goes into this.The point is open in the gemara that there are reasons for the commandments and they are knowable. So the commandments are not good because God said so, but they are God said so because they lead to good. The question in the Gemara is between R. Shimon ben Yocahi whther you go by the reason for the commands or by the written word. See Bava Metzia page 119.]
1.2.20
From my little reading of history of Spain I recall a theme. Muslims took over areas of Spain. But the people were Christian. [So in those areas the rulers were Muslim, but the population were Christian.] That was the setting for the next stage. "Soft jihad" you might call it. That was like this. Muslim adults would be great people. But their teenage boys would venture into the towns of the Christian and do acts of violence. More or less events of jihad. So two opposite streams tended to soften the population to eventually accept Islam. That is kind of how I recall the events in history but I have not read upon this in detail. [I think it was this process which ignited the Martyrs of Cordoba where some people would seek to be martyrs by going up to some Muslim and opening insulting them knowing the penalty.] So it seems like jihad sometimes does work.
[ It is a political problem. And I think that the Constitution of the USA has solved the political problem on how to create a just society. But it seems to work mainly with a Protestant society. So how could one deal with the issue of a different kind of population in a society that is "post Christian"{lukewarm of not at all}? But looking at Hegel I did not see much helpful, because his forte was philosophy, not politics. Socialism has the basic problem that the very first Plymouth colony discovered when the Pilgrims went to settle in America. Why should the industrious work to feed the lazy? So when the founding fathers of the USA were dealing with this problem they decided that the Constitution and their system could only work with a kind of people that had an essential set of values. [Basically Christian values as in family, belief in God, in kindness.]
[ It is a political problem. And I think that the Constitution of the USA has solved the political problem on how to create a just society. But it seems to work mainly with a Protestant society. So how could one deal with the issue of a different kind of population in a society that is "post Christian"{lukewarm of not at all}? But looking at Hegel I did not see much helpful, because his forte was philosophy, not politics. Socialism has the basic problem that the very first Plymouth colony discovered when the Pilgrims went to settle in America. Why should the industrious work to feed the lazy? So when the founding fathers of the USA were dealing with this problem they decided that the Constitution and their system could only work with a kind of people that had an essential set of values. [Basically Christian values as in family, belief in God, in kindness.]
31.1.20
the Gra and Rav Shach
The importance of the Gra and Rav Shach is not to follow them in every detail. The way I see things is that there is a kind of בירור האמת [the truth coming into the clearing like a meadow you find in the middle of a forest -to borrow an analogy from Heidegger.] The point is that sometimes even a great tzadik gains only certain aspects of the truth--but not the whole thing. So I see a kind of dialectical process that happens over time.
Even if Bava Sali was a great tzadik, it does not mean he never made a mistake. We do not even say that about Moses who made at least one major mistake that is recorded in Numbers. We do not say even the greatest tzadik does not and can not make a mistake. Even a sin. But the tzadik tries to repent. And if he does not know or understand his mistake in this world, he tries to correct it in the next world.
The the issue is not to choose a particular tzadik to follow. Rather the point is balance. To find the good values that one ought to stick with and some way to determine what kinds of people or ideas come from the Dark Side [the Sitra Achra] in order to reject what is evil.
[To me it seems that the Musar path of Rav Israel Salanter was in fact very much balanced. Still the "Musar movement" became a movement instead of a path of personal improvement as implied by the words itself. But the actual "Igeret HaMusar" is about learning musar, not making any kind of movement..]
I should add that the path of the Gra certainly is that of "Iyun" deep learning, even though there is an aspect of "Bekiut" [fast learning--saying the words and going on] also. There is a kind of balnce between these two types that I saw in the Mir in NY.
Even if Bava Sali was a great tzadik, it does not mean he never made a mistake. We do not even say that about Moses who made at least one major mistake that is recorded in Numbers. We do not say even the greatest tzadik does not and can not make a mistake. Even a sin. But the tzadik tries to repent. And if he does not know or understand his mistake in this world, he tries to correct it in the next world.
The the issue is not to choose a particular tzadik to follow. Rather the point is balance. To find the good values that one ought to stick with and some way to determine what kinds of people or ideas come from the Dark Side [the Sitra Achra] in order to reject what is evil.
[To me it seems that the Musar path of Rav Israel Salanter was in fact very much balanced. Still the "Musar movement" became a movement instead of a path of personal improvement as implied by the words itself. But the actual "Igeret HaMusar" is about learning musar, not making any kind of movement..]
I should add that the path of the Gra certainly is that of "Iyun" deep learning, even though there is an aspect of "Bekiut" [fast learning--saying the words and going on] also. There is a kind of balnce between these two types that I saw in the Mir in NY.
30.1.20
The path of the Gra
The path of the Gra involves learning Torah as a prime ideal. But I want to add to that learning Physics and Math because of discovering this in the Musar of the Rishonim [first authorities, i.e the authorities of the Middle Ages] even though in the achronim [later authorities after the Beit Yoseph.] the opposite is their approach.
[The Rishonim also add Metaphysics.]
The way to accomplish this I believe is by the Derech HaLimud [method of learning] of Rav Nahman of saying the words and going on.
(Sicha 76 in Sichot HaRan).
That would mean going through the Gemara with Tosphot and Maharsha. [That is the Oral Law]. In understanding the profound aspect of the Gemara I also think one must add the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. In terms of the Math and Physics, I think one should have a session in getting through Algebraic Topology and Quantum Field Theory and String Theory. [But I have no specific texts in mind.] [As for Metaphysics, clearly the Rishonim were referring to the Metaphysics of Aristotle. But I would add Kant, Leonard Nelson, and Hegel. (I do not have much of an idea how to resolve the difference between Hegel and Nelson.]
[I hope this is clear, But just in case let me add that the idea is to have a session in Gemara Tosphot and Maharsha every day. That is to do a few pages just straight. Then put in a place marker. Then pick up an Avi Ezri of Rav Shach and also go through a few pages. Put in a place marker. Then Physics. Same as above. Then a few sessions in Mathematics.]
[The Rishonim also add Metaphysics.]
The way to accomplish this I believe is by the Derech HaLimud [method of learning] of Rav Nahman of saying the words and going on.
(Sicha 76 in Sichot HaRan).
That would mean going through the Gemara with Tosphot and Maharsha. [That is the Oral Law]. In understanding the profound aspect of the Gemara I also think one must add the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. In terms of the Math and Physics, I think one should have a session in getting through Algebraic Topology and Quantum Field Theory and String Theory. [But I have no specific texts in mind.] [As for Metaphysics, clearly the Rishonim were referring to the Metaphysics of Aristotle. But I would add Kant, Leonard Nelson, and Hegel. (I do not have much of an idea how to resolve the difference between Hegel and Nelson.]
[I hope this is clear, But just in case let me add that the idea is to have a session in Gemara Tosphot and Maharsha every day. That is to do a few pages just straight. Then put in a place marker. Then pick up an Avi Ezri of Rav Shach and also go through a few pages. Put in a place marker. Then Physics. Same as above. Then a few sessions in Mathematics.]
Steven Dutch said : I can think of any system that can not be misused."
The issue of Torah scholars that are demons Rav Nahman brings in the very last Torah lesson of his life. So in the thought of Rav Nahman this issue is of great importance. היינו תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים. In the thought process of Rav Nahman the point is that he is actually thinking of real "shadim" or what might be called minor deities with real powers--even miraculous powers.
Though it is clear anyway that that is exactly what the gemara itself holds. As the issue applies to Torah scholars what seems that Rav Nahman is getting at is that the very inner essence of these people has been changed from a human essence to an essence of a demon. Kind of a frightening thought I must add.
Though I have mentioned that this is actually brought in the Gemara itself and even the Mishna yet seems to be an unpopular subject. You don't usually hear about it much--unless you happen to read Rav Nahman's books. Because in the Gemara itself it is mentioned I think just once.
The main thing here is not that this is a reflection on Torah itself. Rather like the Roman saying: "Abuse does not cancel use." Or as Steven Dutch said : I can not think of any system that can not be misused."
The way to understand this is that of בירוד. You have to separate the wheat from the chaff. The way to go about this is a kind of process desired by Hegel. That is in every concept is contained aspects of its opposite until you get to the ultimate Truth. So you need some kind of sublimation to get to the truth. That is in short you find what is right in both and then you can make a synthesis.
[I know this is hard to see in Hegel. I understood this only after learning McTaggart's commentary of Hegel's Logic
Though it is clear anyway that that is exactly what the gemara itself holds. As the issue applies to Torah scholars what seems that Rav Nahman is getting at is that the very inner essence of these people has been changed from a human essence to an essence of a demon. Kind of a frightening thought I must add.
Though I have mentioned that this is actually brought in the Gemara itself and even the Mishna yet seems to be an unpopular subject. You don't usually hear about it much--unless you happen to read Rav Nahman's books. Because in the Gemara itself it is mentioned I think just once.
The main thing here is not that this is a reflection on Torah itself. Rather like the Roman saying: "Abuse does not cancel use." Or as Steven Dutch said : I can not think of any system that can not be misused."
The way to understand this is that of בירוד. You have to separate the wheat from the chaff. The way to go about this is a kind of process desired by Hegel. That is in every concept is contained aspects of its opposite until you get to the ultimate Truth. So you need some kind of sublimation to get to the truth. That is in short you find what is right in both and then you can make a synthesis.
[I know this is hard to see in Hegel. I understood this only after learning McTaggart's commentary of Hegel's Logic
29.1.20
Sometimes you have one person who embodies a certain value -like the Gra would embody the value of learning Torah.
With Hegel it is important to see that the process of the dialectic is a process which leads to the truth. [John Mctaggart [philosophy] makes this clear.] Sometimes you have one person who embodies a certain value -like the Gra would embody the value of learning Torah. Or Rav Israel Salanter the value of Musar. The question is how to combine these different values in a practical way for oneself.
to critique the claim that a communist society would come up with all the good stuff of capitalism and more
I mean to to critique the claim that a communist society would come up with all the good stuff of capitalism and more. But no significant invention shows that claim to be not true.
Not one invention the whole 70 years of the USSR. The spies used to call Silicon Valley "the laboratories of the KGB" because that is where all the tech of the USSR came from. From spies stealing American inventions. [I know because one of my friends was a KGB agent, and I knew him well, and his family. I even taught how to play violin to his daughter.]
In fact, the very corporation my Dad was an inventor in was penetrated by the KGB. [The film, the Falcon and the Snowman was based on this.] [The incident happened after my Dad left the company. He at first had made the infrared detection part of the USA spy satellites. After that my dad continued working for that company --- on laser satellites. But after a few years of that he left.]
Not one invention the whole 70 years of the USSR. The spies used to call Silicon Valley "the laboratories of the KGB" because that is where all the tech of the USSR came from. From spies stealing American inventions. [I know because one of my friends was a KGB agent, and I knew him well, and his family. I even taught how to play violin to his daughter.]
In fact, the very corporation my Dad was an inventor in was penetrated by the KGB. [The film, the Falcon and the Snowman was based on this.] [The incident happened after my Dad left the company. He at first had made the infrared detection part of the USA spy satellites. After that my dad continued working for that company --- on laser satellites. But after a few years of that he left.]
the problem of people that are not physicists commenting on physics.
I also noticed the problem of people that are not physicists commenting on physics. However I also noticed the problem with physicists commenting on physics. That is to say sometimes it is hard to decided who really is the top and who just seems like they know.
Take for example Husserl who knew Physics of his time well. But that did not put him into the same league as an Einstein or Heisenberg. So when t comes to commenting and understanding Physics from a larger picture it turns out that Leonard Nelson was probably a lot better than Husserl. Even though Nelson was not in fact trained as a physicist.
But that does not mean that Husserl was a crackpot. Rather it simply means one has to recognize his own level of experience. Not assume one knows more than he does. Too many smart people over estimate their own abilities.
Take for example Husserl who knew Physics of his time well. But that did not put him into the same league as an Einstein or Heisenberg. So when t comes to commenting and understanding Physics from a larger picture it turns out that Leonard Nelson was probably a lot better than Husserl. Even though Nelson was not in fact trained as a physicist.
But that does not mean that Husserl was a crackpot. Rather it simply means one has to recognize his own level of experience. Not assume one knows more than he does. Too many smart people over estimate their own abilities.
Whether in terms of learning Gemara Tosphot and Maharsha or whether in terms of Physics, I think that there is no question that both "Bekius" (fast learning) and "Iyun"(in depth) are needed.
Clearly Rav Nahman was on the side of going fast. Saying the words just once and in order and going on as fast as possible. And clearly at Shar Yashuv [Rav Freifeld's in NY] and in all places founded on the Gra, the emphasis is on the in depth approach.
But to me it seems clear that the Mir in NY settled on the path of balance. The morning was devoted to "iyun". There that meant preparing for the class of the four roshei yeshiva. And their classes were in fact amazingly deep. The classes were much more than going over Rav Haim of Brisk or R. Akiva Eigger. For some reason the roshie yeshiva had a new idea to add every day. [It was akin to taking classes in Physics from Richard Feynmann or Einstein.] I assume that this was because they had spent all their lives up until about the age of 50 simply preparing. So by the time they became teachers they had plenty of new idea every single day to go into the depths of Rav Haim Soloveitchik.
The afternoons and evenings were for fast learning.
Rav Avraham Abulafia
Rav Avraham Abulafia for some reason is not as well known as one would expect. On one hand his books were never published until a few years ago. But he was thought to be one of the greatest mystics of the Middle Ages and is quoted at length by the Remak and Rav Haim Vital.
[The fourth section of Shaarai HaKedusha of Rav Haim Vital itself was never published until recently but that is the section of his only Musar book that explains how to come to "Ruach HaKodesh" [the Divine Spirit] and it is based totally on Rav Avraham Abulafia.
אמונת חכמים ["faith in the wise"] is in fact an important principle for me, so I take it as an axiom to believe the wise. The only question is how to decide who comes under that category. [This great importance of faith in the wise comes from Pirkei Avot but is emphasized by Rav Nahman of Breslov.
[The basic story with Rav Abulafia is the well known event that he went to debate with the pope. The pope left orders that when Rav Abulafia would reach the gates of Rome that he would be arrested. But for some reason people that tried to arrest him died suddenly.]
[The fourth section of Shaarai HaKedusha of Rav Haim Vital itself was never published until recently but that is the section of his only Musar book that explains how to come to "Ruach HaKodesh" [the Divine Spirit] and it is based totally on Rav Avraham Abulafia.
אמונת חכמים ["faith in the wise"] is in fact an important principle for me, so I take it as an axiom to believe the wise. The only question is how to decide who comes under that category. [This great importance of faith in the wise comes from Pirkei Avot but is emphasized by Rav Nahman of Breslov.
[The basic story with Rav Abulafia is the well known event that he went to debate with the pope. The pope left orders that when Rav Abulafia would reach the gates of Rome that he would be arrested. But for some reason people that tried to arrest him died suddenly.]
28.1.20
So Torah is not meant to be a profession.
There is an important commandment to learn Torah. The basic idea is that when there there is another commandment to do that no one else can do, then one is able to stop learning and then to do the other commandment, and then get back to learning Torah. ["Able" but not obligated according to the Gra]] Otherwise anything one does besides learning Torah come under the category of "Bitul Torah".[Not learning Torah when one is able comes under the category of כי דבר השם בזה הכרת תכרת הנפש ההיא הכרת בעולם הזה תכרת בעולם הבא עיין בנפש החיים ]
[However there is a large array of commandments that are in fact impossible to do by others. For example ונשמרתם מאד לנפשותיכם. פרו ורבו ויותר [watching your health. Having children, etc.]
There is however an important caveat [condition]--not to be making money by means of Torah. Using Torah for money does seem to detract from the value of the commandment. How much so is unclear to me. But in any case, it certainly is undesirable.
So Torah is not meant to be a profession. [See the commentary of Maimonides [Rav Moshe ben Maimon on Pirkei Avot chapter 4. לא קרדום לחפור בהם ... ואשתמש בתגא חלף.] [That statement of Hillel comes up in the first chapter of Pirkei Avot also but that is not where the Rambam put his long comment on it but rather in chapter 4.]
So where does Math and Physics fit in with this? I would have to say that they are in the category of learning Torah and are not just for Parnasa [making a living]. This I saw hints of in Rishonim like the Musar book Obligations of the Heart. But quite openly in the Rambam in Yad HaChazaka and the Guide.
There is however an important caveat [condition]--not to be making money by means of Torah. Using Torah for money does seem to detract from the value of the commandment. How much so is unclear to me. But in any case, it certainly is undesirable.
So Torah is not meant to be a profession. [See the commentary of Maimonides [Rav Moshe ben Maimon on Pirkei Avot chapter 4. לא קרדום לחפור בהם ... ואשתמש בתגא חלף.] [That statement of Hillel comes up in the first chapter of Pirkei Avot also but that is not where the Rambam put his long comment on it but rather in chapter 4.]
So where does Math and Physics fit in with this? I would have to say that they are in the category of learning Torah and are not just for Parnasa [making a living]. This I saw hints of in Rishonim like the Musar book Obligations of the Heart. But quite openly in the Rambam in Yad HaChazaka and the Guide.
27.1.20
Torah scholars that are demons
The only person that I know about who noticed the problems with Torah scholars that are demons is Rav Nahman of Breslov. You would think that this ought to be well known. And also a well developed subject. But for some reason the whole idea seems to be ignored.
[Though you certainly find this in the Mishna and Gemara, still the subject seems to be unpopular].
In Rav Nahman the subject is brought up (LeM I:12 I:28 I:60 II:8 and lots of other places I forget off hand.] but without going into the subject in such a way that can give a person tools to discern.]
In tractate Shabat the sages said "If you see a generation in which troubles are coming upon then check the judges of Israel;-- for all troubles that come into the world only come because of the judges of Israel." [I forget the exact page number but it is towards the end.] The Mishna in Avoda Zara says that "The Prushim are the destroyers of the world". [ פרושים הם מכלה עולם].
[Though you certainly find this in the Mishna and Gemara, still the subject seems to be unpopular].
In Rav Nahman the subject is brought up (LeM I:12 I:28 I:60 II:8 and lots of other places I forget off hand.] but without going into the subject in such a way that can give a person tools to discern.]
In tractate Shabat the sages said "If you see a generation in which troubles are coming upon then check the judges of Israel;-- for all troubles that come into the world only come because of the judges of Israel." [I forget the exact page number but it is towards the end.] The Mishna in Avoda Zara says that "The Prushim are the destroyers of the world". [ פרושים הם מכלה עולם].
Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. One section per day.
Even though there is an aspect of keeping Torah which is important, the problem is how to go about this is hard to figure out.
The approach which makes sense to me is to have a few sessions of learning per day.
That is the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. One section per day. But go over that section every day for a few days in a row.
Also a session in Physics and a session in Mathematics. [Besides that secular subjects seem like "bitul Torah" to me.]
To me it does seem to make any difference if one has finished Shas before learning the Avi Ezri or the Hidushei HaRambam of Rav Haim of Brisk. It was the path in Shar Yashuv to dig into the depths Gemara right away without any waiting. However I do recall the the first year in Shar Yashuv was spent on catching up. Maybe some part of the second year also. But pretty much the idea was that if one does not learn right away "how to learn" [how to understand the Gemara in a rigorous and exact way]then one never gets it.
The approach which makes sense to me is to have a few sessions of learning per day.
That is the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. One section per day. But go over that section every day for a few days in a row.
Also a session in Physics and a session in Mathematics. [Besides that secular subjects seem like "bitul Torah" to me.]
To me it does seem to make any difference if one has finished Shas before learning the Avi Ezri or the Hidushei HaRambam of Rav Haim of Brisk. It was the path in Shar Yashuv to dig into the depths Gemara right away without any waiting. However I do recall the the first year in Shar Yashuv was spent on catching up. Maybe some part of the second year also. But pretty much the idea was that if one does not learn right away "how to learn" [how to understand the Gemara in a rigorous and exact way]then one never gets it.
Howard Bloom [The Lucifer Principle]
The idea of Howard Bloom [The Lucifer Principle] in the "meme" the unit of social information that a collective is founded on does not capture fully the idea that a nation is founded on a legend. Like the Plymouth Colony in the the founded on the USA.
And the founding legend is determining a lot of how things develop after that.
The way this is refereed to nowadays is "The Narrative". If you can control how people perceive the past then you control the present and the future.
So in the USA what happens is people try to control the Narrative. They put the Plymouth Colony and anything after that reflects well on the Founding Fathers of the USA or the settling of the West in a negative light. That way they control the future to turn the USA into a totalitarian socialistic state by denying its founding legend and principles.
And the founding legend is determining a lot of how things develop after that.
The way this is refereed to nowadays is "The Narrative". If you can control how people perceive the past then you control the present and the future.
So in the USA what happens is people try to control the Narrative. They put the Plymouth Colony and anything after that reflects well on the Founding Fathers of the USA or the settling of the West in a negative light. That way they control the future to turn the USA into a totalitarian socialistic state by denying its founding legend and principles.
right kind balance
My point in bringing up my parents is to show it is possible to live a wholesome life of being a mensch and living Torah values while also working for a living and not using Torah for money. Somehow my parents got the right kind balance that is hard to put into words.
26.1.20
the basic story of my Mom and Dad and their values.
I thought to write in short the basic story of my Mom and Dad and their values. The basic story starts in Poland.That is where my grandparents on both sides decided to go to the USA. So some missed World War I in that way. On the other hand the parents of my Dad however did not go until after WWI. The basic education that both my parents received was American. My Dad went to Cal Tech for his education. And then went to fight in WWII in the USAF. He was a captain.
Their basic values were self sufficiency, be a mensch [good character] and marry a nice Jewish girl. These were values that were stated openly. As for the encouragement of Math and Physics--that is a aspect of my parents that they encouraged, but did not state openly . It was simply understood that when they saw my interest they approved.
The Jewish aspect was mainly in going to Temple Israel in Hollywood. But they were not going with the Reform approach exactly. Reform tends to emphasize what is called "Social Justice", which is a weasel word pseudonym for "Socialism."
In any case, regular American values was definitely their thing. Self reliance, straight talk. Truth Justice and Common Sense. However, I had a philosophical bent which led me to two great Litvak Yeshivas, Shar Yashuv and the Mir. [That was the result of my search for "the Truth".] [Shar Yashuv is where I learned from Naphtali Yeager who had a sort of approach to learning like zooming an electron microscop on Tosphot. Later at the Mir the approach was like an eagle--that is global. That you see in books like Rav Shach's Avi Ezri.]
So the path which I think is the best is a kind of synthesis between different areas of value. That is in a sense that would be like Hegel. That is there is an array of positive values and one ought to walk on a path that finds a proper balance. That is Self Sufficiency [or Self Reliance]--but with trust in God, learning Torah, learning Math and Physics.
So you have an array of values like you see in Kelley Ross [based on Kant and Leonard Nelson.] But then with Dr Ross there is no combining of disparate areas of value. For that you need Hegel. So in short I see the need for both Leonard Nelson and Hegel. Why there has to be conflict does not seem very good to me since they both seem necessary.
Their basic values were self sufficiency, be a mensch [good character] and marry a nice Jewish girl. These were values that were stated openly. As for the encouragement of Math and Physics--that is a aspect of my parents that they encouraged, but did not state openly . It was simply understood that when they saw my interest they approved.
The Jewish aspect was mainly in going to Temple Israel in Hollywood. But they were not going with the Reform approach exactly. Reform tends to emphasize what is called "Social Justice", which is a weasel word pseudonym for "Socialism."
In any case, regular American values was definitely their thing. Self reliance, straight talk. Truth Justice and Common Sense. However, I had a philosophical bent which led me to two great Litvak Yeshivas, Shar Yashuv and the Mir. [That was the result of my search for "the Truth".] [Shar Yashuv is where I learned from Naphtali Yeager who had a sort of approach to learning like zooming an electron microscop on Tosphot. Later at the Mir the approach was like an eagle--that is global. That you see in books like Rav Shach's Avi Ezri.]
So the path which I think is the best is a kind of synthesis between different areas of value. That is in a sense that would be like Hegel. That is there is an array of positive values and one ought to walk on a path that finds a proper balance. That is Self Sufficiency [or Self Reliance]--but with trust in God, learning Torah, learning Math and Physics.
So you have an array of values like you see in Kelley Ross [based on Kant and Leonard Nelson.] But then with Dr Ross there is no combining of disparate areas of value. For that you need Hegel. So in short I see the need for both Leonard Nelson and Hegel. Why there has to be conflict does not seem very good to me since they both seem necessary.
Popper showed psychology is pseudo science
The story he tells about how the idea of being able to falsify a theory is quite amazing. The story was he asked a psychoanalyst what is the proof of his theory?
The answer given was, "I have a thousand case files showing this."
Popper answered him, "And if you will have another one, it will just show what you already think." Right then it occurred to him the crux of the issue is not how much proof you have; but whether there is something that can show it is false. So he showed that psychology is pseudo science because no matter what theory anyone has, they never give any kind of case that could show they are wrong.
And Dr. Kelley Ross noted that there is a point of starting reason that is not reasoned. It is not so different from Michael Huemer's starting point of prima facie evidence. The way things seem. But that starting point can be falsified by stronger evidence from a different direction.
[And his The Open Society And Its Enemies is quite an amazing book. The title says already quite a lot.] [Still I am not so happy with the chapter on Hegel which seems a bit overdone. But in any case I think there is a point that politics was not exactly Hegel's forte. For that I would rather read the Federalist papers of the founding fathers of the USA and John Locke which seem thought out better.]
The answer given was, "I have a thousand case files showing this."
Popper answered him, "And if you will have another one, it will just show what you already think." Right then it occurred to him the crux of the issue is not how much proof you have; but whether there is something that can show it is false. So he showed that psychology is pseudo science because no matter what theory anyone has, they never give any kind of case that could show they are wrong.
And Dr. Kelley Ross noted that there is a point of starting reason that is not reasoned. It is not so different from Michael Huemer's starting point of prima facie evidence. The way things seem. But that starting point can be falsified by stronger evidence from a different direction.
[And his The Open Society And Its Enemies is quite an amazing book. The title says already quite a lot.] [Still I am not so happy with the chapter on Hegel which seems a bit overdone. But in any case I think there is a point that politics was not exactly Hegel's forte. For that I would rather read the Federalist papers of the founding fathers of the USA and John Locke which seem thought out better.]
25.1.20
to do every chapter [perek]] ten times
I ought to let people know how I learn Torah because it is good useful when you do not have a learning partner with a 150 or more IQ like I had with David Bronson. Or my teachers in Mir or Rav Naphtali Yeger of Shar Yashuv. [Though I am sure that David has at least 160 IQ. I am just saying that without a learning partner like that this method is what I recommend for me and others.]
So without further ado let me just say in short: I find the Maharsha on the page. I then go over the paragraphs with the Tosphot and Mahaharsha, and do that a few times.
And if you are like me that spending a month or two on one page seems a bit too much, this is the way that I do myself when I get a chance to learn, and also I recommend this to others. That is the Gemara, Tosphot and Maharsha. A few times and then go on.
[Actually this was more or less how I learned in the Mir in spite of everyone else being involved in depth "Iyun" [in depth study] with the deep approaches of the Roshei Yeshiva at the time: Rav Shmuel Brudni, Rav Shmuel Berenbaum, Rav Sharaga Moshe, and the Sukat David.]
So without further ado let me just say in short: I find the Maharsha on the page. I then go over the paragraphs with the Tosphot and Mahaharsha, and do that a few times.
And if you are like me that spending a month or two on one page seems a bit too much, this is the way that I do myself when I get a chance to learn, and also I recommend this to others. That is the Gemara, Tosphot and Maharsha. A few times and then go on.
[Actually this was more or less how I learned in the Mir in spite of everyone else being involved in depth "Iyun" [in depth study] with the deep approaches of the Roshei Yeshiva at the time: Rav Shmuel Brudni, Rav Shmuel Berenbaum, Rav Sharaga Moshe, and the Sukat David.]
[I should add here an idea that Rav Freifeld used to emphasize--to do every chapter [perek]] ten times. At that time I found that impractical, but since then I have seen the wisdom of this idea.]
In Hegel you have the idea of synthesis of different areas of value to get to the truth. This is not the same thing as "Birur" [choosing the good from what is to be rejected.]
So let's say you have an array of different values [as brought in Kelley Ross's approach based on Kant and Leonard Nelson]. That is you start with all form and no content as in logic where each term of a formula like If A then B. And if B then C. Therefore if A then C is true. Each term is empty of content in that it can be filled with anything. But the formal logic of all classical logic still are applicable. But then you work up towards something that has more content and less form. That is straight Mathematics. It can not be reduced to formal logic. In that sense it has more content but is less formal. Then you work still towards more content as in Music and Justice. Each has more numinous content but is not empty of logical form either. Then you get up towards all content and no form. God.
So you have this array of values. Each one can not be reduced to formal logic or to any other area of value. You see a proto type of this in Maimonides where one's portion in the next world depends on deeds and wisdom. Two separate areas of value.
But then you have a process like that of finding what is valid in each area and rejecting what is not and then you combine them. This idea of Hegel of the Dialectic in which you find what is valid in each concept, and see that instead of leading to a contradiction it has to lead to a synthesis. [See McTaggart on Hegel's Logic.]
[What Hegel is doing is to take the approach of Socrates in questioning the slave boy and showing him that there are truths he knows but did not know that he knows. So there is a kind of Dialectical process in which truth becomes revealed. Hegel applied this on a vaster scale in a way that leads to the "Absolute Truth". In any case, it is better to see McTaggart to get a more clear picture of this.]
So when you have an array of positive value, you do the "Birur" choosing and then you combine the different areas to get to "The Truth".
So let's say you have an array of different values [as brought in Kelley Ross's approach based on Kant and Leonard Nelson]. That is you start with all form and no content as in logic where each term of a formula like If A then B. And if B then C. Therefore if A then C is true. Each term is empty of content in that it can be filled with anything. But the formal logic of all classical logic still are applicable. But then you work up towards something that has more content and less form. That is straight Mathematics. It can not be reduced to formal logic. In that sense it has more content but is less formal. Then you work still towards more content as in Music and Justice. Each has more numinous content but is not empty of logical form either. Then you get up towards all content and no form. God.
So you have this array of values. Each one can not be reduced to formal logic or to any other area of value. You see a proto type of this in Maimonides where one's portion in the next world depends on deeds and wisdom. Two separate areas of value.
But then you have a process like that of finding what is valid in each area and rejecting what is not and then you combine them. This idea of Hegel of the Dialectic in which you find what is valid in each concept, and see that instead of leading to a contradiction it has to lead to a synthesis. [See McTaggart on Hegel's Logic.]
[What Hegel is doing is to take the approach of Socrates in questioning the slave boy and showing him that there are truths he knows but did not know that he knows. So there is a kind of Dialectical process in which truth becomes revealed. Hegel applied this on a vaster scale in a way that leads to the "Absolute Truth". In any case, it is better to see McTaggart to get a more clear picture of this.]
24.1.20
The Gra himself was the path of straight Torah.
Rav Shach a representative of the path of the Gra, but not the essence of the path itself. The Gra himself was the path of straight Torah.
There is a difference between a representation of something and the thing itself.
There is a difference between a representation of something and the thing itself.
The Musar Movement (Musar itself means works of Ethics)
The Musar Movement has an advantage that by means of going through the basic texts of classical Musar, one comes to an understanding of the world view of Torah. The disadvantage is that even with this one can go off on a tangent.
Musar itself in fact became incorporated into the parallel Litvak Yeshiva idea which had been started by Rav Haim of Voloshin the disciple of the Gra. I imagine that the reason was this exact reason. So the idea of sitting and learning Musar hours and hours every day seems to no longer exist anywhere. But the fact is that without the basic texts of the Rishonim [mediaeval Musar], it seems impossible to come to any kind of world view that in fact is close to the Torah world view.
[Quick note of introduction. Musar itself means works of ethics of the Middle Ages. If one learns the Torah itself and also the Gemara it is hard to come to a rigorous cohesive world view of Torah. It was the forte of the sages of Middle Ages to get to a logical cohesive picture of what Torah is about that is understandable.]
Musar itself in fact became incorporated into the parallel Litvak Yeshiva idea which had been started by Rav Haim of Voloshin the disciple of the Gra. I imagine that the reason was this exact reason. So the idea of sitting and learning Musar hours and hours every day seems to no longer exist anywhere. But the fact is that without the basic texts of the Rishonim [mediaeval Musar], it seems impossible to come to any kind of world view that in fact is close to the Torah world view.
[Quick note of introduction. Musar itself means works of ethics of the Middle Ages. If one learns the Torah itself and also the Gemara it is hard to come to a rigorous cohesive world view of Torah. It was the forte of the sages of Middle Ages to get to a logical cohesive picture of what Torah is about that is understandable.]
The difficulty in learning Torah is often the religious themselves.
The difficulty in learning Torah is often the religious themselves. In particular I noticed that people that make money off of Torah are are a problem.
Rav Nahman of Breslov brings up this problem in a few places in his LeM. But one place in particular that I recall says that when one wants to come into the gates of holiness, from heaven there is placed someone that seems like one who fears God to stop him.`
At any rate, this problem is wide spread and pervasive./It is almost a guarantee that anyone who makes their living by using Torah (to make their money) is from the realm of Evil.
I am, however, not saying that this is any kind of reason not to learn Torah. Rather my point is that one ought to learn Torah the right way,-- or not do it at all. Either (1) for its own sake, and not use it for making money as is done in kollel; (2) or not to do it at all. It is like any task. Do it right, or do not do it at all. But what ever you do, do not do it wrong.
Rav Nahman of Breslov brings up this problem in a few places in his LeM. But one place in particular that I recall says that when one wants to come into the gates of holiness, from heaven there is placed someone that seems like one who fears God to stop him.`
At any rate, this problem is wide spread and pervasive./It is almost a guarantee that anyone who makes their living by using Torah (to make their money) is from the realm of Evil.
I am, however, not saying that this is any kind of reason not to learn Torah. Rather my point is that one ought to learn Torah the right way,-- or not do it at all. Either (1) for its own sake, and not use it for making money as is done in kollel; (2) or not to do it at all. It is like any task. Do it right, or do not do it at all. But what ever you do, do not do it wrong.
23.1.20
Being against Jesus is considered the main prime directive in the Jewish world. This does not seem to me to be the proper position to take regarding this issue.
I mean to say that if your commitment is towards objective truth then being against Jesus is wrong.
The reason for me to come to this conclusion was that originally my commitment was to get to objective truth. Not to go along with the crowd. Also I should add that I was born and raised in a time that going along with what others think was already thought to be a strike against one. [That is thinking like others was thought to be a highly negative trait.]
The main reason I came to a positive approach towards Jesus was mainly from the books of an ancient mystic Rav Avraham Abulafia who held Jesus if from the root of Joseph HaTzadik. He uses the term "the seal of the sixth day".
But for some reason when I have brought up Avraham Abulafia, that never seems to most people to be an convincing argument.
So I add the Ari Rav Isaac Luria in the few books of commentary on Joseph in the very last verse of Genesis. That might to others seem more convincing, but to me to see this in the words of Rav Abulafia was the one thing that convinced me.
It is not that everything is right. You need the Law and there is a kind of balance between these two areas of value--Law and Grace.
It is possible that what is going on nowadays is a kind of process of "birur" בורר that is taking the good and right and rejecting what is not. This would be like Hegel held that coming to the Truth is a process that happens over time.
I mean to say that if your commitment is towards objective truth then being against Jesus is wrong.
The reason for me to come to this conclusion was that originally my commitment was to get to objective truth. Not to go along with the crowd. Also I should add that I was born and raised in a time that going along with what others think was already thought to be a strike against one. [That is thinking like others was thought to be a highly negative trait.]
The main reason I came to a positive approach towards Jesus was mainly from the books of an ancient mystic Rav Avraham Abulafia who held Jesus if from the root of Joseph HaTzadik. He uses the term "the seal of the sixth day".
But for some reason when I have brought up Avraham Abulafia, that never seems to most people to be an convincing argument.
So I add the Ari Rav Isaac Luria in the few books of commentary on Joseph in the very last verse of Genesis. That might to others seem more convincing, but to me to see this in the words of Rav Abulafia was the one thing that convinced me.
It is not that everything is right. You need the Law and there is a kind of balance between these two areas of value--Law and Grace.
It is possible that what is going on nowadays is a kind of process of "birur" בורר that is taking the good and right and rejecting what is not. This would be like Hegel held that coming to the Truth is a process that happens over time.
note about colleges nowadays
comment
I have two USMC sons, and one Army. One of the Marines started college, found he didn't like it (neither the students nor the profs). He dropped out after 3 semesters and joined the Corps. There he learned electronics and worked on Harriers and copters. First job when he got out: engineer at SpaceX, making 30% more than I make with a PhD and 35 years in the classroom. I am proud of the fact that I have steered all of my 9 children away from academia, and I do my best to steer my students away from it also.
Michael Huemer has already mentioned some problems with universities. My feeling about this is that certain ones in STEM are very good like CalTech and MIT and Stanford. But outside of STEM it is all just a waste.
I have two USMC sons, and one Army. One of the Marines started college, found he didn't like it (neither the students nor the profs). He dropped out after 3 semesters and joined the Corps. There he learned electronics and worked on Harriers and copters. First job when he got out: engineer at SpaceX, making 30% more than I make with a PhD and 35 years in the classroom. I am proud of the fact that I have steered all of my 9 children away from academia, and I do my best to steer my students away from it also.
Michael Huemer has already mentioned some problems with universities. My feeling about this is that certain ones in STEM are very good like CalTech and MIT and Stanford. But outside of STEM it is all just a waste.
22.1.20
What would be the response of Aristotle to Thomas Reid. [that knowledge that a flame is hot is not similar in any way to the hotness of the flame.] And does Aquinas hold by the approach of Aristotle in this regard?
Rishonim were going with the basic world view of Plotinus as you can see in Ibn Gavirol and Saadia Gaon. It was the Rambam that made the turn towards Aristotle. That had already been the world view of the Muslims. The Christians were the last to go with Aristotle starting from Aquinas. before that they had been totally Neo Platonic.
So the question is with all. Do they have any answer about the questions of Thomas Reid.
My opinion is that they do not. That is to say that it is unavoidable to get to the synthesis of either Hegel of Kant or some synthesis of Kant like in Leonard Nelson.
Rishonim were going with the basic world view of Plotinus as you can see in Ibn Gavirol and Saadia Gaon. It was the Rambam that made the turn towards Aristotle. That had already been the world view of the Muslims. The Christians were the last to go with Aristotle starting from Aquinas. before that they had been totally Neo Platonic.
So the question is with all. Do they have any answer about the questions of Thomas Reid.
My opinion is that they do not. That is to say that it is unavoidable to get to the synthesis of either Hegel of Kant or some synthesis of Kant like in Leonard Nelson.
To trust in God was a major element of the Musar yeshivas of Navardok. But it is implicit in almost all Litvak yeshivas. Where I went was the Mir in NY and before that was Shar Yashuv. But in both places there was a basic idea that all you need to do is to learn Torah and God will take care of the rest.
And trust in God had other benefits. It is brought in the Sefer HaMidot of Rav Nahman that by trust in God good thoughts are drawn to you. That is it is a shield against evil thoughts and evil world views.
In spite of this, in some places Torah is used to make money. But that is not the idea behind a Litvak yeshiva in its original sense.
But the point is that to learn to trust in God depends a lot I think on being in a Litvak yeshiva where that is the prevailing world view --that trust in God is the main thing in life. By being with like minded people one can gain that kind of world view himself.
In Israel I have very little familiarity with the situation, but the best and are Ponovitch and Brisk.
In terms of the issue whether all one is supposed to do is to learn Gemara I have found it helpful to depend on the opinions of Ibn Pakuda and other Rishonim that include Physics and Metaphysics in the category of learning Torah.
And trust in God had other benefits. It is brought in the Sefer HaMidot of Rav Nahman that by trust in God good thoughts are drawn to you. That is it is a shield against evil thoughts and evil world views.
In spite of this, in some places Torah is used to make money. But that is not the idea behind a Litvak yeshiva in its original sense.
But the point is that to learn to trust in God depends a lot I think on being in a Litvak yeshiva where that is the prevailing world view --that trust in God is the main thing in life. By being with like minded people one can gain that kind of world view himself.
In Israel I have very little familiarity with the situation, but the best and are Ponovitch and Brisk.
In terms of the issue whether all one is supposed to do is to learn Gemara I have found it helpful to depend on the opinions of Ibn Pakuda and other Rishonim that include Physics and Metaphysics in the category of learning Torah.
21.1.20
trust in God
The idea of trust in God that is Torah based is trust without effort. You see this in the Levels of Man
Madragat HaAdam of Navardok. And he brings the idea from the Gra.
But in a practical vein what does it mean? My impression is that when there is something immediate that one needs to do, then he does it. But in terms of planning for the future that is where trust in God comes to play its role.
That is the way trust in God was understood in the Mir in NY. That is to say you sit and learn Torah and do not worry about money.
[And now that at least for myself I expand the definition of learning Torah to include Physics (as brought in the Guide of Maimonides), I would have to go with the same idea. To do the Physics for its own sake. ]
In any case the idea is that you do what you should be doing to serve God and do not worry about money. That seems to be the basic idea.
In fact I do not have much trust and realize that that is an area I need to work on. So how does one go about working on trust in God. One idea I thought makes sense is to say over that very part of the Madragat HaAdam itself every morning right when you get up--before saying or doing anything..\
Another idea is to encourage others to trust in God and to learn Musar. That is an idea I got from reading a disciple of Rav Israel Salanter.
[I have not made a major issue for the last few years since I have been afraid of self deception. I can imagine I am trusting in God and then when things do not go my way I am afraid I can deny the very validity of trust in the first place. The fault would be clearly my own self deception. So I have not emphasized this for myself. But recently it is looking like an issue that ought not to be ignored.
Madragat HaAdam of Navardok. And he brings the idea from the Gra.
But in a practical vein what does it mean? My impression is that when there is something immediate that one needs to do, then he does it. But in terms of planning for the future that is where trust in God comes to play its role.
That is the way trust in God was understood in the Mir in NY. That is to say you sit and learn Torah and do not worry about money.
[And now that at least for myself I expand the definition of learning Torah to include Physics (as brought in the Guide of Maimonides), I would have to go with the same idea. To do the Physics for its own sake. ]
In any case the idea is that you do what you should be doing to serve God and do not worry about money. That seems to be the basic idea.
In fact I do not have much trust and realize that that is an area I need to work on. So how does one go about working on trust in God. One idea I thought makes sense is to say over that very part of the Madragat HaAdam itself every morning right when you get up--before saying or doing anything..\
Another idea is to encourage others to trust in God and to learn Musar. That is an idea I got from reading a disciple of Rav Israel Salanter.
[I have not made a major issue for the last few years since I have been afraid of self deception. I can imagine I am trusting in God and then when things do not go my way I am afraid I can deny the very validity of trust in the first place. The fault would be clearly my own self deception. So I have not emphasized this for myself. But recently it is looking like an issue that ought not to be ignored.
My impression of the best places to go to learn Torah --at least in terms of what I am familiar with is for beginners Shar Yashuv in NY, and for advanced levels the Mir [ of NY]. I am really not very much familiar with yeshivas in Israel. If, of course, Ponovitch [in Bnei Brak] is still represented by anyone like Rav Shach, well that stands to reason that that is the top. He was the Mount Everest of the Torah world.
The things that were amazing to me about Litvak yeshivas in New York was their depth.
Israel is great in many ways, but too many people come because they imagine they will get some level like what you have in Litvak yeshivas in NY. That is usually not actually what happens.
The things that were amazing to me about Litvak yeshivas in New York was their depth.
Israel is great in many ways, but too many people come because they imagine they will get some level like what you have in Litvak yeshivas in NY. That is usually not actually what happens.
The idea of Rav Nahman of Breslov to do "hitbodadut" [talk with God] the whole day seems to me to be a good idea. You see this idea in the very end of his book the LeM where he says the main thing is to do hitbodadut the whole day, but for people that are weak the minimum is for them to do an hour a day.
There seems to many great results of this. But one is that to choose between good and evil requires a kind of common sense that is anything except common. It needs a special kind of help from above.
There seems to many great results of this. But one is that to choose between good and evil requires a kind of common sense that is anything except common. It needs a special kind of help from above.
20.1.20
"It is possible to serve God with everything."
Grace and Law. The thing is you need a balance between these. You see a kind of balance between these two areas of value in Rav Nahman. In fact in two lessons in his LeM he brings the ideas "Not to be strict" and "It is possible to serve God with everything." [ LeM II 44.]
The idea is that God's light fills the world. So the idea is not that everything is good. Rather that it is possible to find the Good.
The thing about two different areas of value is you need each area to get to its perfection before it can be integrated successfully with the other. An example would be Newton's Gravity with Maxwell. Each needed to get to the peck until Einstein could see the way to combine, or better said to modify Newton. Same with Einstein and Heisenberg until you got Feynman and Schwinger with QFT. Same with String Theory. So it is with other areas of value.
The way you can see this is with spectral lines. Each one is sharp and defined for every element and molecule. But each has its own signature. so the same element will have very specific lines and nothing in between. No penumbra.
The idea is that God's light fills the world. So the idea is not that everything is good. Rather that it is possible to find the Good.
The thing about two different areas of value is you need each area to get to its perfection before it can be integrated successfully with the other. An example would be Newton's Gravity with Maxwell. Each needed to get to the peck until Einstein could see the way to combine, or better said to modify Newton. Same with Einstein and Heisenberg until you got Feynman and Schwinger with QFT. Same with String Theory. So it is with other areas of value.
The way you can see this is with spectral lines. Each one is sharp and defined for every element and molecule. But each has its own signature. so the same element will have very specific lines and nothing in between. No penumbra.
The problem is implanted knowledge. There is no reason to think it is true.
Dr Michael Huemer has a kind of point that he answered to me long ago about a kind of problem in the Kant Friesian approach of immediate non-intuitive knowledge [i.e. faith.] [note 1] The problem is implanted knowledge. There is no reason to think it is true. So what can you do with that. In my own mind I have thought to answer this by the idea of Hegel of the dialectic. That getting to truth is this process between empirical knowledge and a priori knowledge.
[I mean to say that as Dr Huemer has argued that even the most straight forward empirical knowledge has hidden a priori assumptions. I would say faith has also this aspect. That is the old mediaeval approach of balance faith with reason.]
[In case it is not clear what I am saying it is that moral principles are objective universals. And that Reason's "thing" is to recognize universals. But as Huemer mentions that sometimes even for pure reason to get the concept in the first place requires an empirical element.]
[I am really not able to take any sides here. It seems to me that Hegel, Kelley Ross, and Huemer all have good points. I imagine the Kelley Ross answer to Huemer would be that your prima facie assumption would have have to have a starting point before reason can even start, plus that it can be checked empirically. thus even flat space time which for kant was the start of reason without which reason could not even start, had to be sacrificed to general relativity. this in fact caused the major crisis of the friesian school. but as kelley ross pointed out, it did not have to be so. and here the insights of michael huemer are helpful for if you see your starting principles cause problems, you might as well find other tarting principles--just as Einstein did. [he assumed Maxwell's equations were more fundamental than newton's, so with Einstein the starting principle had to be that the speed of light is constant in all non accelerating frames of reference --as is the case with maxwell ]
[note 1] "Non intuitive" is not sensed by any of the five senses. "Immediate" means not through anything. I.e. no mediate step. That means not derived by some logical deduction. So "immediate non-intuitive" means knowledge that you know not through the sense and not by some logical derivation.
[I mean to say that as Dr Huemer has argued that even the most straight forward empirical knowledge has hidden a priori assumptions. I would say faith has also this aspect. That is the old mediaeval approach of balance faith with reason.]
[In case it is not clear what I am saying it is that moral principles are objective universals. And that Reason's "thing" is to recognize universals. But as Huemer mentions that sometimes even for pure reason to get the concept in the first place requires an empirical element.]
[I am really not able to take any sides here. It seems to me that Hegel, Kelley Ross, and Huemer all have good points. I imagine the Kelley Ross answer to Huemer would be that your prima facie assumption would have have to have a starting point before reason can even start, plus that it can be checked empirically. thus even flat space time which for kant was the start of reason without which reason could not even start, had to be sacrificed to general relativity. this in fact caused the major crisis of the friesian school. but as kelley ross pointed out, it did not have to be so. and here the insights of michael huemer are helpful for if you see your starting principles cause problems, you might as well find other tarting principles--just as Einstein did. [he assumed Maxwell's equations were more fundamental than newton's, so with Einstein the starting principle had to be that the speed of light is constant in all non accelerating frames of reference --as is the case with maxwell ]
[note 1] "Non intuitive" is not sensed by any of the five senses. "Immediate" means not through anything. I.e. no mediate step. That means not derived by some logical deduction. So "immediate non-intuitive" means knowledge that you know not through the sense and not by some logical derivation.
19.1.20
18.1.20
THE LEFT: "The U.S. is always wrong, therefore the Gulf War was wrong."
Abelard Rules for thinking straight
The basic problem is this. The left takes the view that whatever the USA does is wrong. That includes any and all white, males. Especially if they are Protestant.
The question is not weapon quality Uranium being shipped to Iraq.[See the whole history of the Iraq acquiring.] Or N. Vietnam massacres of civilians in S. Vietnam after they took over. The issues are all easy to decide. As long as it is on the side of the USA and/or democracy,- then it is wrong. The left just needs to think how to argue the point. But the beginning assumption is always the same. White, Protestant, American is always wrong. That is three strikes and you are out. If only one or two of these three evil categories, then one is only part evil. But put all three together, and you get the whole.
It gets tiring to argue when you know the conclusion anyway.
The truth be told, it is hard to get something like justice. But my feeling about it is more or less like Allan Bloom [Closing of the American Mind] said in so many words. The political question is settled. The Constitution of the USA is the best you can get. That does not mean it can not be perverted. But it is the best anyone can get.And countries that follow that basic English British model have done extremely well. Just take a look at all former colonies of the British. The amount of success and respect for human rights is astonishing.--as compared with any other system that has ever existed in human history.
The issue with the USSR was that sometimes there is such a thing as exploitation. That does not make it right to steal someone else's money. Stealing is still stealing. To exploit was more or less the basic reason that the revolution happened in Russia. But that was not a good reason to go in the opposite direction. You need a kind of balance between private property and government protection of workers.
The basic problem is this. The left takes the view that whatever the USA does is wrong. That includes any and all white, males. Especially if they are Protestant.
The question is not weapon quality Uranium being shipped to Iraq.[See the whole history of the Iraq acquiring.] Or N. Vietnam massacres of civilians in S. Vietnam after they took over. The issues are all easy to decide. As long as it is on the side of the USA and/or democracy,- then it is wrong. The left just needs to think how to argue the point. But the beginning assumption is always the same. White, Protestant, American is always wrong. That is three strikes and you are out. If only one or two of these three evil categories, then one is only part evil. But put all three together, and you get the whole.
It gets tiring to argue when you know the conclusion anyway.
The truth be told, it is hard to get something like justice. But my feeling about it is more or less like Allan Bloom [Closing of the American Mind] said in so many words. The political question is settled. The Constitution of the USA is the best you can get. That does not mean it can not be perverted. But it is the best anyone can get.And countries that follow that basic English British model have done extremely well. Just take a look at all former colonies of the British. The amount of success and respect for human rights is astonishing.--as compared with any other system that has ever existed in human history.
The issue with the USSR was that sometimes there is such a thing as exploitation. That does not make it right to steal someone else's money. Stealing is still stealing. To exploit was more or less the basic reason that the revolution happened in Russia. But that was not a good reason to go in the opposite direction. You need a kind of balance between private property and government protection of workers.
17.1.20
Villagers in New Guinea. Should you full their request to send "a satellite phone, a flashlight, and the equivalent of about $20,000 in cash."
Villagers in New Guinea. Should you full their request to send "a satellite phone, a flashlight, and the equivalent of about $20,000 in cash."
A comment by Dr Kelley Ross on
A Death in the Rainforest, by Don Kulick
A fascinating update to the story of the Cargo Cult, and its reception by a Western liberal, is A Death in the Rainforest, How a Language and a Way of Life Came to an End in Papua New Guinea by Don Kulick [Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 2019]. Kulick is a scholar in linguistics and anthropology.
Kulick is apparoached by a villager, and is asked him to send various goods, like a satellite phone, a flashlight, and the equivalent of about $20,000 in cash. Oh, and don't forget to let him know his mobile phone number. Kulick can only tell him that "I'll do my best".
This occasions painful reflections on the part of Kulick for the tragedy of life in the village of Gapun:
"I read Luke's letter as an entreaty to white-skinned people everywhere. I see it as an appeal. I think it is a guileless call to acknowledge the privilege that white skin has acquired, and a gentle request that white people recognize that vast inequalities that we have begotten around the world. Most of all, it seems to me that Luke's letter is a heartfelt plea to begin to redress those inequalities by giving something back. "[p.238]From this, we might wonder what Kulick expects "white" outsiders to do -- forgetting that globalization and development in the Third World now often involve the Chinese, if not the Japanese, Koreans, Indians, and other people arguably not "white." And we get the cliché about "giving something back," which ought to raise the question exactly what has been "taken" from Gapun. No one has come in to loot their limited possessions, certainly not white people. Arguably, they have been "robbed" of their traditional culture; but then their way of life, daily farming, hunting, and eating, actually have not been changed that much (contrary to the "a Way of Life Came to an End" in the book subtitle). What has changed are their expectations. They know that a better life exists, and they would like to be part of it. But giving them these ideas is part and parcel of "robbing" them of their traditional culture. Does Kulick think that they should have been kept in ignorance of the outer world? Does he believe, as the saying goes, that "the Wogs should stay Wogs"? But this is otherwise regarded as one of the worst, most condescending, colonialist attitudes.
Thus, the "rainforest" is a wonderful place, the "lungs of the planet," with marvelous diversity of life, etc. Nature at her best. On the other hand, a "jungle" is a threatening, dangerous place, probably populated with head hunters. Obviously this is the result of some kind of racist smear. However, Kulick points out, the environment of Gapun is much more like the dangerous "jungle" than like the romanticized "rainforest." The people of Gapun suffer from endemic malaria and rarely live to old age. Their environment is on land that is largely mud, frequently flooded, with leeches, snakes ("Death Adders"), and crocodiles all over the place. And the villagers used to be actually be head hunters, in a culture of constant warfare with neighboring villages. The villagers know that there is a better life elsewhere, but their isolation, many hours up small rivers and through swamps, prevents their full participation in the modern world. Nevertheless, they benefit from artifacts like cooking pots, steel knives, mosquito nets, and even flashlights -- but replacing batteries can be a problem.
Western Civilization as opposed to religious fanaticism
The issue of religious fanaticism is best addressed by Kelley Ross. [That is the Kant-Fries school of thought based on Leonard Nelson]. That is simply this: you have an array of positive values from one end of the half circle of no value but all form [logic] going through various middle stages of partly adding value but lessening form until you get to the peak of all infinite value and zero form [God].
But so you have to have a hand in all the areas of positive value. But you just as much and even more so need to avoid every equal and opposite area of negative value.
Certain people were able to hold onto one particular area well and open up a path through that area into ultimate holiness.
Those are individual great people that hand a hand in perfecting some area of value.And there are people that Allan Bloom calls "civilization founding people" that go beyond one or two specific areas but are able to hold the entire superstructure in the first place like the basic foundations stones of Western Civilization.
Hegel also has the same kind of array of value, [http://autio.github.io/projects/scienceoflogic/] but connects them through a process of dialectic. Hegel is quite interested in fact in doing the same kind of defense of Christianity that Aquinas was doing, but somehow or other his ideas got to be used in the exact opposite ways he was intending them to be used. [Incidentally the opinion of Rav Avraham Abulafia, a mediaeval mystic was also very positive towards Jesus himself but not toward the actual functioning Catholic Church. In that way he was very similar to Hegel.]] But if in fact he is all that different than Leonard Nelson, I am not so sure of. [McTaggart answers a lot of the question son Hegel. Some he admits openly are a problem. Some he adjusts Hegel. Some he shows the questions are based on misunderstandings.]
But so you have to have a hand in all the areas of positive value. But you just as much and even more so need to avoid every equal and opposite area of negative value.
Certain people were able to hold onto one particular area well and open up a path through that area into ultimate holiness.
Those are individual great people that hand a hand in perfecting some area of value.And there are people that Allan Bloom calls "civilization founding people" that go beyond one or two specific areas but are able to hold the entire superstructure in the first place like the basic foundations stones of Western Civilization.
Hegel also has the same kind of array of value, [http://autio.github.io/projects/scienceoflogic/] but connects them through a process of dialectic. Hegel is quite interested in fact in doing the same kind of defense of Christianity that Aquinas was doing, but somehow or other his ideas got to be used in the exact opposite ways he was intending them to be used. [Incidentally the opinion of Rav Avraham Abulafia, a mediaeval mystic was also very positive towards Jesus himself but not toward the actual functioning Catholic Church. In that way he was very similar to Hegel.]] But if in fact he is all that different than Leonard Nelson, I am not so sure of. [McTaggart answers a lot of the question son Hegel. Some he admits openly are a problem. Some he adjusts Hegel. Some he shows the questions are based on misunderstandings.]
16.1.20
religious fanaticism.
My parents were very much against any kind of path that reeked of religious fanaticism. While having great respect for Torah. but anything that would take a person out of a path of balance and sanity was totally off the radar for them.
So with due respect for the Gra and Rav Shach, and Rav Nahman,-- they would not have agreed with elements of fanaticism that one might find in their writings. And the result of this kind of thinking would mean [at least in our present day and age] to stay away from the religious world as far as possible.
Their path was to send their children to public school, and emphasize getting a good education. Going for weekend excursions to the ocean etc. I.e., a normal, wholesome American home (in those days when there was such a thing). I am not so sure any such thing exists anymore. But it once did.
[Nowadays the secular world seems to be a kind of secular fanaticism. I am sure my parents would never send me to public school today. They would find some private school. In fact, I almost went to a private school. My parents were willing to send me there. But in the end I backed out and continued in my regular high school which in those days was also excellent.]
So with due respect for the Gra and Rav Shach, and Rav Nahman,-- they would not have agreed with elements of fanaticism that one might find in their writings. And the result of this kind of thinking would mean [at least in our present day and age] to stay away from the religious world as far as possible.
Their path was to send their children to public school, and emphasize getting a good education. Going for weekend excursions to the ocean etc. I.e., a normal, wholesome American home (in those days when there was such a thing). I am not so sure any such thing exists anymore. But it once did.
[Nowadays the secular world seems to be a kind of secular fanaticism. I am sure my parents would never send me to public school today. They would find some private school. In fact, I almost went to a private school. My parents were willing to send me there. But in the end I backed out and continued in my regular high school which in those days was also excellent.]
My basic orientation is not to follow any religion as a belief system, but rather to follow Reason. Sometimes Reason points out that some points are valid. Sometimes there are in other questions not. So the standard ought to be the question what does reason require? Not what does any particular religion require. There are no package deals.
However reason is a hard. But that only means that to reason well is hard. It does not mean that there is any better standard.
to get to authentic Torah in any sense whatsoever the only way is through the path of the Gra.
The importance of the signature of the Gra on the famous letter of excommunication is that often one without knowledge or experience can not tell what is authentic Torah or not. It is the same reason a mother warns her children not to put their hands on a hot stove.
It is somewhat of a shock that though "faith in the wise" is one of the most important principles of how Torah is acquired, still the Gra who was on the top of the list of the top ten, still is ignored.
I only saw one place alone that goes by the Gra with no compromise the yeshiva of Rav Silverman in the Old City of Jerusalem. [pronounced "Zilverman"]
I can only recommend such a kind of yeshiva. To me it seems of ultimate importance this one basic fact about the Gra. To me it seem clear that to get to authentic Torah in any sense whatsoever the only way is through the path of the Gra.
[So even if I do not have the merit to stick with the path of the Gra in ever detail, at least I can try to stick with it in areas that are within my control.]
It is somewhat of a shock that though "faith in the wise" is one of the most important principles of how Torah is acquired, still the Gra who was on the top of the list of the top ten, still is ignored.
I only saw one place alone that goes by the Gra with no compromise the yeshiva of Rav Silverman in the Old City of Jerusalem. [pronounced "Zilverman"]
I can only recommend such a kind of yeshiva. To me it seems of ultimate importance this one basic fact about the Gra. To me it seem clear that to get to authentic Torah in any sense whatsoever the only way is through the path of the Gra.
[So even if I do not have the merit to stick with the path of the Gra in ever detail, at least I can try to stick with it in areas that are within my control.]
15.1.20
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)