Closing of the American Mind, Allan Bloom thought very poorly of the Humanities departments and Social Studies in universities. Not that he thought to shut their doors once and for all. Rather he thought they face a crisis that had been developing since around around 1600. What is the natural man? Noble, blank, or evil? What is the self? But unless there would be an answer, he surely thought these two parts of universities ought to be closed. [But he would have agreed with STEM and Technical schools].

But he like other great thinkers thought that the USA was great. The only question was how to keep up that degree of excellence.

You see in the deepest philosophers nowadays this one constant factor belief in the greatness of America. Hegel called the USA "the State of the future" as Walter Kaufman brings and I vaguely recall seeing that myself in Hegel--I think.]. Even Howard Bloom [the Lucifer Principle.]

[This would bring a question why Hegel has been used for everything except to support the idea of the Constitution of USA. This clearly ties in to the fact that most people that major in philosophy lose their common sense [or start out without much ]. So they find rich ideas in Hegel, and use them in destructive ways. For some reason Hegel is used a lot by Marxists in exactly the opposite way he intended.]

Torah of the Dark Side.

What exactly was the reason or the issue that Rav Nahman of Breslov brings up in his LeM I:12 and I:28 about Torah scholars that are demons? I do not pretend to  reach the depth of Rav Nahman's thoughts. However I would suggest that the issue is that there is such a thing as straight Torah--that is the kind of Torah that I would learn in Litvak Yeshivas that is the basic attitude that, "we have only one doctrine: to learn what the Torah says, and to keep it."
That is the basic approach of the Gra, Rav Israel Salanter  and Rav Shach.
But there is also Torah of the Dark Side. Rav Nahman actually warns us in the   LeM ["hashmatot" printed in the back in most recent editions.]

video for String Theory

I ought to add here that to really get to String Theory, one ought to get through Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory first. [ Even though QFT is different than String Theory still, it is hard to understand Strings without first having a background in QFT.]

Brian Greene for Quantum Mechanics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFrBr8oUVXU

The Infra Red Telescope of NASA will be looking for planets that are possible for humans to live in.
When was the Infrared telescope invented?





Photo in Life Magazine about the first infra-red telescope.

July, 1954; page 24

This would be the first of its kind invented by Philip  Rosenblum.


The question however is even after finding a new world, how to get there? For that we need to study String Theory. This is to be able to find some crack in spacetime=some way of making a worm hole. After all, we can not go faster than light. So to get anywhere in our galaxy, we need to skip over [or under] space time, not go through it.

Now there is some kind of fundamental existence that is not space or time. This is actually stated in Lemaitre who discovered that the universe is expanding. [Friedman discovered that Einstein equations do have solution than can expand or contract.] 

Anti Enlightenment started almost at the same time as the Enlightenment. And Allan Bloom claims that this difficulty is what is at the root of the malice and sickness in the universities.

But he leaves out Kant and Hegel. Why? [I think that he must have thought they did not solve the problem-- even though clearly both meant to.]

I wrote all this before so why am I repeating this? Because of an added thought that Friedrich Jacobi  was on the opposite side of the Enlightenment and it was his idea of faith [or immediate knowledge [not through reason] and not through the senses] that was a target of Hegel.
This is in spite of the fact that both Kant and were trying to get to God--the Absolute Spirit.
But they thought that subjective faith was not the way.

The other interesting thought is that the root of this difficulty in some way I think was even back in the Middle Ages when the conflict between Reason and Faith was a major issue. But in the Middle Ages it was thought that there must be a way to synthesize them.

W81 G minor  [w81 in midi format] [w81 nwc]

w80 in mp3 format   w80 in midi format [w80 nwc format]

Rav Nahman of Breslov had a wealth of great ideas and advice but his main emphasis was on medicine for people's soul's. Medicine is not the same as food. So while Rav Nahman has great advice for particular problems, that does not mean to simple decide "to be Breslov". You might ask what is wrong with that? The problem is it is like a kid walking into a pharmacy, and picking out all the different medicines that have pretty colors.  Is there any question about how long this would last?

That is why I tend to emphasize the Gra and the Musar approach of Rav Israel Salanter in order to have an idea of the basic structure of Torah. Then within that context, Rav Nahman can be very helpful.

I learned a lot from my experiences at Shar Yashuv in Far Rockaway and the Mir. And I learned a lot from the great sages, Rav Freifeld, the founder of Shar Yashuv and Rav Shmuel Berenbaum. I mean to say it was not just book learning, but also I stuck around these great sages and thus learned a lot by osmosis.

[However it was not until later when learning with David Bronson, that the basic in depth learning approaches of Shar Yashuv and the Mir began to sink in.]]

[Rav Nahman emphasized learning fast and Litvak yeshivot emphasize learning in depth. So what is best in balance. To have some sessions fast and others in depth.]

you really understand more than you know.

It seems to me that I ought to add one thing about learning whether the Oral or Written Law or Math and Physics. I mentioned already the idea of "Girsa" [saying the words and going on]. But I wanted to add the idea of starting each day where you left off until you finish the book. [That is for the important fast session. The in-depth sessions should be with more review.]
But this depends on the idea that you really understand more than you know. You think that you did not understand. But in fact, it gets absorbed and grows in the secret recesses of your heart and mind and comes to fruition only years later.

Michael Huemer holds that no government is legit. But also he is for capitalism. So for security he would have private firms.
It kind of reminds me of when the Roman Empire fell and who ever could get enough people to back him up made a castle in which people could have protection from the roving bands of robbers that filled the vacuum. And for the security that the lord of the castle provided people worked for him as serfs. I.e the feudal system.

Now I am not being critical of that. After all the feudal system is one stage that led to the Renaissance.
But the  critique that applies is the contained in the Federalist papers. There there is a not a lot of history but they are assuming their readers are familiar with the history of places that bounced back and forth between tyranny and anarchy from the fall of Rome until their days. So they were not happy with the idea of anarchy, or even a weak government.
One point in the Federalist papers was that those who profess to speak for the right of the people always bring about tyranny. Even more recently we have seen plenty of examples--the USSR, Nazi Germany are just two more famous examples of demigods who got power by their constant claim of upholding the right of the people [i.e. Ethnic Germans of the "working class"] against the government.

One thing that might make the American Constitution better than schemes of philosophers is that teh founding fathers were learning from history more than philosophy. The thing is nowadays no one really knows the history that they were learning from except experts in those areas. The warring Italian states ( in Greece) provided plenty of material for the founding fathers of the USA to learn from mistakes of "all power to the people" that goes directly to tyranny; and then that is thrown off again to all power to the people etc.

Tosphot Ri''d right in the beginning of Kidushin

kinyan sudar [acquisition by handkerchief] and kinyan halifin [acquisition by barter] are kind of similar. But there is  a difference according to Tosphot in Bava Metzia 47 and Rav Shach brings in the beginning of laws of marriage that you see the same in the Rambam.

The handkerchief does not need a penny. But for acquisition by barter each thing needs to be at least a penny.
So this provides a simple answer for the Tosphot Ri''d right in the beginning of Kidushin that says if the handkerchief would have a penny's worth the marriage would be valid.
If the handkerchief would be exchanged for the a barter then the marriage would be valid.

This is however a bit awkward. The only thing the gemara actually excludes from being able to marry a woman is halifin/barter. To get this to make sense you would have to say that the Gemara is really referring to kinyan sudar. Now on one hand kinyan sudar is a kind of barter, but still the whole thing is curious.

[For people that are not familiar with these ideas let me just say that the basic idea of the handkerchief is brought in the Book of Ruth and it means the one that is buying something hand over a handkerchief and by that acquires what he is buying. And he can get his handkerchief back. [Or any kind of vessel.] It is like barter in some ways. So for example when I get married at the signing of the Ketubah I would have to hand over a handkerchief and by that acquire the property of my wife for its fruits--not that actual physical property which she still owns. Only the fruit. So when we say מה שקנה אישה קנה בעלה what a woman acquire automatically is acquired to her husband means property that she acquires after she is already married.

if one gets up in the morning and is right away accepting on himself the yoke of Torah, that is that he or she will not listen to anyone and not let anything distract him or her, then on that he he will succeed in Torah;- and according to the degree of commitment, to that same degree there will be removed from him the yoke of the state and the yoke of having to run around for making a living.

Rav Haim of Voloshin [a disciple of the Gra] that it is a well tested thing that if one gets up in the morning and is right away accepting on himself the yoke of Torah, that is that he or she will not listen to anyone and not let anything distract him or her, then on that he he will succeed in Torah;- and according to the degree of commitment, to that same degree there will be removed from him the yoke of the state and the yoke of having to run around for making a living. [note 1]

[This same idea is brought in Avot which is a part of the Mishna]

I want to add to this Physics and Mathematics as brought in some rishonim [but not all.] We know already the opinion of the Saadia Gaon, Ibn Pakuda and the Rambam. However the Ramban [Nahmanides] is less clear."Less clear "means we know he is not thrilled about Aristotle, but what about learning the natural sciences? There the Ramban/Nahmanides  is unclear to me. At least the Rambam we know  what he thinks.

[Few people are aware of this. They think of learning as something you do with a goal in mind of using the learning somehow. They do not see learning in itself as the highest goal. תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם

[note 1] אמר רב חיים מוואלשין דבר מנוסה כשאדם ישכים בבוקר ויקבל על עצמו ביום ההוא  עול תורה באמת  היינו שיגמור בליבו שלא ישמע לשום אדם ולא יבטלנו שום טרדה אזי יצליח ביום ההוא בתורה וכפי גודל הקבלה ותוקף ההסכמה כן יסירו הטרדות והביטולים ממנו 

I must admit I am no where near this great level of service of God, but I just wanted to bring this in the hope of conveying understanding to others and then I hope that like a mirror perhaps a little bit of understanding will enter into me too.

Politics the way it is, as opposed to how intellectuals think it ought to be.

There is an odd kind of dividing line between the way politics really is a the way intellectuals think it ought to be.

Prosperity and freedom  go hand in hand along with the influence of England. The difference between any place that has once been an English colony and anywhere else is striking. The USA Australia, Hong Kong, India etc. [Any place that has once had English law imposed on it by force is now free and prosperous.  Even Japan which had English institutions imposed on it (by the USA) by force is now a first world power. ]

And yet England and its institutions were never founded on deep philosophical ideas.
Even the very existence of Parliament was because Edward I needed money. [Edward I is not my favorite English King.] [Can you imagine if England's institutions had been founded on some philosopher? Right about that. It would be a disaster.]

Is maybe politics is inherently not an exact science. Still how people that analyze it get it so wrong is curious. Why should it be more wrong that other things that are not exact sciences like medicine? Or maybe that is exactly the point? Medicine also tends to be highly subjective.


Edward I needed money. the heads of towns and villages had revenue by not the king. So the king made Parliament so the representative had to give money to the king in order to be able to sit in Parliament. That is no representation without taxation.

[I am not being critical of all people that think of a connection between politics and philosophy.
Kelley Ross of the Kant Friesian school of thought does suggest a connection between Kant idea of individual autonomy and the system of the USA Constitution. That seems to be right.]
Michael Huemer holds from no government but with private property. However this issue was addressed o the Federalist Papers. The idea of separate corporations being in charge of security seems to be destined to be such that alliances are made between them that anyway become a default government based on power and force.

Bell's inequality

Things they just do not have classical values of time or position in space until measured. Because of Bell's inequality it could have been the case that things are simultaneous or that things do not have classical values. Since the first way is not true since we know that Relativity is right so the only thing left is the second.The actual case in hand was thought up by Einstein and it was Bell who showed the predictions of QM are different than classical mechanics. At any rate, we know that time is just this very odd kind of thing. It was already odd with special relativity. It just got even more odd with Bell. Kant thought that reason just can not understand it at all. But with Hegel there is hope since reason can make progress towards understanding.

[How do we know that Relativity is right? By GPS satellites. If Relativity would be off they would be off by a few miles every day.]


The point that lots of people get wrong is they think there is simultaneity.  There was a lecture by Coleman and another by Gell-Mann showing this point that I said up above.

w79 G major   [w79 in midi format]

We know Saadia Gaon was aware of mysticism. He wrote a commentary on Sefer Yezira. But did not think of it as authoritative. He did not borrow or use any idea from there when it came to understanding spiritual issues in his Emunot VeDeot.

Not did Ibn Pakuda [Author of the Obligations of the Hearts] nor the Rambam think of mysticism as a source or reliable knowledge, nor  a part of the commandment of learning Torah. When both of them expand the definition of learning Torah to include Physics and Metaphysics they do not include mysticism.

When the Rambam refers to Metaphysics he says quite openly in the Intro to the Guide  that he is referring to this subject as written down by the ancient Greeks. [Same with the Obligations of the Hearts on the first page of his introduction. And see later in Shar Ha'Behina 3.]

[I find great insights in the works of mystics like Rav Avraham Abulafia of the Middle Ages, but I do not consider that to be  a part of the written or oral law. Those are his personal revelations. Similarly to Rav Nahman of Breslov. In fact, if someone would be claiming that their personal insights come from Moses at Sinai, that would be  a problem. An example would be the Zohar. Insightful, but presented as being a part of the oral tradition. There is a kind of dishonesty in that.]

[Isaac of Acco met the author who exclaimed, may God strike him dead if he does not have a original copy in his house,-- and he would show him. But before Isaac got to his house, the author in fact died. [How inconvenient.] His wife swore there was no such original. (She said he sat there with nothing in front of him, and wrote it from his head.) But to me, the sure give away is "עם כל דא" a way of saying "although" invented by the Ibn Tibon family. I just can not force myself to read what is obviously a forgery, no matter how inspiring it might be.]


[Just for the record, I did learn a lot of the Ari/Rav Isaac Luria however I understand him as being like Rav Nahman in that he is just saying over his personal revelations, and not claiming that they are from Sinai. I never saw anything in the Ari that was claiming that these were oral traditions going back in time. ]

Instead of fiction I suggest Physics and Math. Why is it that people gravitate towards fiction? Because it is relaxing. However that does not mean not to do Physics at all. People have an idea that if they do not understand then what is the point? But there is a point. To be connected with the Wisdom of God.
So what people need is to first have the idea that they are not wasting their time by doing so and rather that they are fulfilling a commandment of God.

[As the Rishonim [mediaeval authorities] explain that to fulfill the commandment of love and fear of God is by learning Physics and Metaphysics. (When Rishonim like Ibn Pakuda or the Rambam refer to Metaphysics they explain exactly what they mean: the subject as defined by the ancient Greeks. Not mysticism. See the very introduction to the Guide of the Rambam and the very first page of the Obligations of the Hearts.]

Also people need the idea of doing this first thing in the morning after a cup of coffee.
If school is out, this is all the better. You get a chance to do this before having to run out and get to school or to work. After all, it is the first hour after you wake up that is the proper time to do this learning.

[Also I would suggest to have coffee and tea in the same cup. The reason the kind of lift that you get from coffee is a short burst. The lift from tea is more drawn out over a longer period.]

As Allan Bloom said the political question is solved once and for all: the Constitution of the USA

There is an intersection between philosophy and politics. But what is it exactly and why is it? And why does it always seem to get politics in a way that seems contrary to sense?
Politics should be the art of creating a prosperous and happy society. As Allan Bloom said the political question is solved once and for all: the Constitution of the USA. But that came about with almost zero input from philosophy. Few had even heard of John Locke.  They simply did not want Parliament interfering with their internal affairs. And when the King refused to back up the colonists, then that was the end of their loyalty towards George III.
The Constitution had mainly to do with the evolution of English Law.

Philosophy on the other hand seems to build these castles in the sky that have nothing to do with reality.

When I was in high school I saw  a film about the black plague. And from my reading about history I have an idea of what plagues were like. This seems to be different.
It might not be made by Communist China in order to cripple the economy of the USA, but it might have been a convenient chance to do so.

I mean to say that I grew up during a time when there was a kind of rivalry between the USSR and the USA. And in spite of attempts, and even many people of good will on both sides, still there was still the reality of each side hoping the other would go down.

I would not be surprised if China was thinking along the same lines--to see the end of the capitalistic West. 

w78 G Major  [w78 in midi format]

Robert Hanna suggested a way to differentiate between different Kantian  and Husserl approaches. Strong and weak. So in terms of "dinge an sich" (things in themselves) there might be the strong transcendental,-- we can not know not even if they exist. The weak approach might be: They exist, but we do not know anything about them.  Hegel would say to this we do not know now,- but we will in the future.

You actually see this in Rav Nahman [Breslov] in the left out parts of the LeM {Hashmatot} where he says that when Reason was first created it was expanding without limit. And then God set a boundary for it. So that boundary can be itself expanding.

[Robert Hanna was not the first to notice the problems with 20th century philosophy. It might have been Allan Bloom. In any case I saw this first in the blog of Dr. Kelley Ross, who is also suggesting a kind if "forward to Kant" but in particular the brand of Leonard Nelson and Fries. However I can see that Hegel and other people after Kant had some good points. And a further confusing issue is how does anything in philosophy relate political structures?]

[Kant had a few people after him and Fries was one of the least popular. However he does have a justification for faith that makes sense to me.]

Laws of Slaves. Section 5. law 3 in the Rambam. Letting a slave go free in Rav Shach's Avi Ezri

The basic idea of letting a slave go free comes from a Gemara and is brought in Laws of Slaves. Section 5. law 3 in  the Rambam. Kinyan Sudar [handkerchief] does not work to the Rambam. but it does to the Raavad. [Normally letting a slave go free is by a document, or money, or injury. So what about exchange? or Handkerchief?  The handkerchief might work if it has a penny's worth.  This seems to be an argument between the Rambam and Raavad. But neither makes a distinction if the handkerchief is worth more than a penny!]
This comes directly from a Gemara where in fact someone tried to let his maid servant go by throwing a vessel at her. He threw it and said "by this you are let go". Rav Nahman [of the Gemara, not of Breslov] said that does not work. And the Gemara concludes the reason is because the vessel belonged to the owner.
So if it had belonged to the maid servant she would have been freed. So this looks like a straightforward proof to the Tosphot Ri''d that marrying by means of a handkerchief would work of the handkerchief is worth more than a pruta/penny.

What makes this hard to understand is that barter itself ("halifin") does seem to be in the category of money since it works only if each object is worth more than a penny. And that is not the same as with acquisition by handkerchief.

So could Lincoln legally free the slaves? It seems to me that it was not legal simply because the Constitution granted to Federal government only specific powers.  If he had powers granted by the Constitution that however would have been Okay. But it seems that that was not one of the powers granted to a president. As for the war itself, that I guess has been argued about but it also seems almost as clear as the first point--but not as clear. After all it seems not to be within the right of the Federal government to force the states to stay within the Union. It also seems like over stepping the bounds of the powers granted by the Constitution. 

I see that Robert Hanna brings down a whole long list of many people in philosophy departments that have noticed the bareness  and irrelevance of philosophy today. However I have to say that the first to bring this issue up was the Allan Bloom in the Closing of the American Mind.

I would like to suggest is that people in philosophy got too hung up on "making progress". What was wrong with learning philosophy as Socrates understood it--as effort to understand the world.

Not get academic "browny points".

 Rav Nahman [Breslov] said a correction for for sexual sin is to say the ten psalms 16, 32, 41, 42, 59, 77, 90, 105, 137, 150.
This was said mainly for the case of "nocturnal pollution" however it applies to all kind of sexual sin and in fact to all other types of sin also as you can see in the LeM of Rav Nahman vol I section 19.
[That is the reason for the name "Tikun Klali"--general correction].


Also especially nowadays when people have more free time I want to bring up the issue of private conversation with God that he suggested. [This was not meant in place of formal prayer, but this was something that he himself spent a lot of time doing.] He even said that one that really wishes to serve God ought to go out to some private place in the woods of wilderness and spend the whole day talking with God in one's own language.

In terms of learning he suggested saying the words and going on. This was not meant to replace learning in depth. But sometimes learning in depth is not possible until one gets the general idea in the first place. This he meant to be done for learning the two Talmuds and Midrashim and Rif, and Rosh and Tur. But I also think it applies to Physics and Mathematics as per the Rishonim that held these too are a part of the commandment to learn Torah.

You see in the Mir in NY and all Lithuanian yeshivas based on the Gra that the morning is spent on in depth learning and the afternoon on learning fast. I recall walking by the place where Rav Shmuel Berenbaum [One of the teachers at the Mir] was learning in the afternoon and saw that through the course of one afternoon, he would go through at least ten or more pages.
[That means according to the way of learning fast in the afternoon at the Mir. That was Gemara with Tosphot--but just fast. That was not same as the in depth learning in the morning. But the morning in depth really just meant preparing fir the class of one of the four teachers depending on whose class you were in.  And their classes were a mix of Rishonim and later authorities. That is why it is hard to explain. The best I can do to give you an idea of what that means is to learning Rav Haim of Brisk and Rav Shach's Avi Ezri. That will give you an idea of what the average class at teh Mir was like.

Rule of the stupid. When respect for reason falls, monsters are born (teachers and students of Psychology).

 The IQ of people in universities  is not the same among different departments. The highest IQ people are the  Physics students and teachers. The lowest are the teachers and students of Psychology. But the latter are the one that determine the curriculum of schools and even who is considered sane in the larger society. So what we have is the rule of the stupid.  That is that the most stupid are the one who control the direction of society.

When respect for reason falls, monsters are born.

Faith and Reason was  not exactly a new idea in the Middle Ages. To combine Torah with Plato was already around from Philo. But to get the way they fit together was a Middle Ages invention. It was not to interpret the Bible as an allegory.

But faith with reason underwent a change because of Descartes's Mind-Body problem. Where is mind and reason valid? What do they measure. To get to the original synthesis of the Middle ages of Revelation with Reason you need to understand to extent and validity of reason.

How far can you trust spiritual experiences to tell you accurate data? Maybe a lot? Maybe not where it disagrees with Reason? But then where is the realm of Reason? 

To my way of thinking Kant and Hegel are helpful to answer these questions. Yet Hegel has been significantly mangled up by people wishing to use his rich wealth of ideas for their political purposes. And Kant is not so much behind that in terms of  misuse.

My opinion is that both the school of thought of Leonard Nelson based on Fries and Kant is helpful along with Hegel. I do not see them as much in conflict as is  thought.

With Fries you have faith-i.e. immediate non intuitive knowledge. That is knowledge not based on reason or senses for areas outside of "conditions of experience." But with Hegel you find that reason can get through the veil of perception by means of dialectic. So while reason is to some degree  a negative force limiting what you can know, it also makes progress towards the Absolute Spirit.

https://www.infowars.com/watch-alex-jones-message-to-the-new-world-order/

They are saying that Dr Fauci has not seen a patient for 20 years. He is an academic in an ivory tower. He based his conclusions on models which were wildly wrong.  Now that actual data is in we can see the difference between what was predicted by models as opposed to actual facts.
However I think this is  a great opportunity to catch up on figuring out how to building star ships.

D Major index number w76

people can believe a lot of stuff

You can see that people can believe a lot of stuff. And often it is a mixed bag. So you can also see why after clarity was brought into nature and gravity by Isaac Newton, that people thought they could extend that same process to bring clarity into things like politics, or spiritual issues.

But the attempts of philosophy, nor of political science actually succeed. Still there has been some progress. Though it can not be proven, still it looks that Kant was right about the limits of reason. So that also places limits on what you can talk about in terms of spiritual matters. [I mean that logic has limits and also limits about what you can say about spiritual things.] And Politics also made great progress in the creation of the Constitution of the USA.

Some people noted that philosophy after Kant and Hegel [especially 20th century] went seriously off the wires, crash dived,  wiped out. But as Robert Hanna made note of, much of the effort to get things back on track was ignored. John Searle made a famous comment about most of twentieth century philosophy, "It is obviously false."
[I am not sure why Robert Hanna does not mention Leonard Nelson or Hegel.]



[Robert Hanna came up with the idea "Forward To Kant" but does not hold from the Neo-Kant School of thought-- Marburg. So what about Leonard Nelson? Or Hegel? Now Hegel tends to be a bit obscure, however he becomes clear with McTaggart. [I only learned McTaggart a little bit but mainly I saw his commentary on Hegel's Logic--that is the part of his Encyclopedia.] So I think after you would throw out twentieth century philosophy, you would still end up with having to get back to Nelson and McTaggart. 

Rav Shach brings the Tosphot Bava Metzia page 47 [in the beginning of Laws of Marriage in the Rambam]

Rav Shach brings the Tosphot Bava Metzia page 47 [in the beginning of Laws of Marriage in the Rambam] that says there are two kinds of exchange: (1) barter and (2) handkerchief. [It does not have to be a  handkerchief. It could be any vessel.] The buyer takes a handkerchief and gives it to the seller and by that acquires the vessels or whatever the seller is selling. Now actual barter only works for vessels. Not fruit for fruit. But barter has to be for least a penny on both sides. The "kinyan sudar" does not need to be worth a pruta (penny).
But the barter does not have a law of overcharging, because this one wants a  needle and that one wants a coat of armor. [In that way barter is not like monetary exchange. But kinyan Sudar is  not like monetary exchange from the side of its own worth, but what about overcharging if it is used to seal a deal? There are so many questions here about the opinions and reasons for the Rambam I can see why Rav Shach just wrote this piece in short form.]

So barter  has this odd kind of  state. It is on the first way like a deal made with money. But the other side of things it is not like money. Deals made with money have  a law of overcharging. [Up to 1/5 the money is returned. More than 1/5 the deal is nullified.] 
So we know what the Tosphot R''id holds in terms of marriage. He spells it out. If the handkerchief is more than a penny's worth it is a deal made by money [so valid].

But the Rambam? Would he agree? I think not. After all the whole difference about the barter is not really relevant to the handkerchief. There seems to be no reason to think the Rambam would agree with the Ri''d.

Remember Lot's Wife: Diabolical Narcissism, the Overarching Global Pathology

American history

 But I believe American history is not taught well.  My eyes opened when I read Daniel Defoe's pamphlets from the 1700's and I began to see where all the issues that were facing the founding fathers all stemmed from: England. The powers of the King as opposed to Parliament.
I believe that without thorough knowledge of English history that American history is impossible to understand. In particular the years from 1700 until 1776.
[It is a lot easier to understand the Bill of Rights if you see the same issues in England.]



I think to understand the USA at all, one needs to start from Edward I and in fact even William the Conqueror.


I should add that I got real criticism from the teacher of AP History. And he was right. I had no feeling or concept of USA history. But what was I lacking? I realized what I was lacking recently when I read Daniel Defoe. [I recall that I passed the class, but still what was lacking in my understanding? It now know it was the background of the issues back into English history.] 

Yuri Bezmenov, KGB Defector,

From Info Wars: Yuri Bezmenov, KGB Defector, warned Americans of the scientific demoralization campaigns waged in media decades ago. Learn to identify these techniques aimed at subverting American culture.

His basic point was that most of the funds that the KGB had were being used on disinformation and specifically directed to subvert the USA into Socialism.

To me it seems that until the files can be reopened it would be impossible to understand the exact involvement of the KGB in turning the USA towards Socialism. Obvious there has been a tremendous success in that direction. Even though Democrats do not use the word "socialism", still a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Socialism by any other name would still be socialism.  

I discussed this once with a friend that used to work for the KGB and his opinion was that the KGB did not have the resources that could have subverted  the USA. And now I can see his point. Still what exactly were their activities? And how much of the turn was because of the KGB and how much was simply the fact that many intellectuals believed in socialism. It does not have to be a plot. Still the whole history of this affair is curious. You have got to wonder if Russia would ever be willing to let research again into the KGB archives?

I ought to be upfront about my own beliefs just for the record. I do not hold at all from socialism. The reason is mainly that I think people have a right to their hard earned money. That is I believe in the Ten Commandments. Specifically:  "Thou shalt not steal". So I see no merit in stealing from the rich based on some ideology that says that they themselves must have stolen it or other excuses.

Rav Avraham Abulafia went to debate with the pope.

It is well known that Rav Avraham Abulafia went to debate with the pope. The way the events are related is that people were sent to arrest him as he reached the gates of Rome. But somehow or other they could not stop him. At that point the pope ran away to another city.

Now on one hand hand Rav Abulafia had a high opinion about Jesus. So that probably was not the issue of what he wanted to debate. But he had a low opinion of the Catholic church. So maybe that was one of the issues?

[Maybe the Trinity? It seems impossible on one hand, however Hegel seems to have an approach that to me seems reminiscent of the Neo Platonic school of Plotinus.]

There is a book by professor Moshe Idel Sonship which goes into the issue of being a son of God as understood by mystics like Rav Abulafia in the Middle Ages.

 

The "seal of the sixth day" is how Jesus is referred to elsewhere inRav Abulafia That seems to be a reference to the idea in the Talmud about a of a messiah son of yoseph

I noted that most people have no idea of what sexual sin is. So just to make it clear the first category are the things mentioned in Leviticus 18 which are called עריות "revealing the nakedness". That is mostly with the same family but includes a menstruating woman and a married woman and sodomy.
But all those are the most serious as you can see by the punishment "Karet" being cut off from one's people and in most of them there is a death penalty.
But there are plenty of lesser categories in Deuteronomy which are all just plain prohibitions "Lavin".

[Like when it says an Egyptian should not come into the congregation for three generations. That is an example of a regular "Lav" prohibition. 


I mean to say that all sins in the Law of Moses are all plain prohibitions unless something like karet is specified.

 Rav Nahman  said that a kind of correction for sexual sin [what is called "Tikun HaKlali"] is to say ten psalms in order. [16, 32, 41, 42, 59, 77, 90, 105, 137, 150]. But that is along the lines of repentance on sin.
Also he mentions going to [and into -totally] a natural body of water like an ocean or river. [That is anyway a good idea.]

[As the Gates of Repentance [Rav Yona of Gerondi] brings right in the beginning of his book that you can not repent until you have an accurate idea of what really is a sin and what is not.

One problem is that people make no distinctions in levels of sin. There are some sins that have "karet" as a spiritual cutting off from the next world or even the death penalty. Now a death penalty is only for things done on purpose.  But for lots of things like that that are done by accident there is a sacrifice. That is the sin offering. [Nowadays we do not bring that anymore since there is no Temple.] But for things that are just prohibitions there is no sacrifice nor any death penalty.

The basic idea of learning Physics that I have mentioned is to some degree based on the Rishonim like Ibn Pakuda and the Rambam. But I have seen statements in the books of Rav Nahman of Breslov which also indicate as much.

However what is it that stops people from doing so?

One is lack of desire. I have tried to cure that by showing that it is in fact included in the commandment to learn Torah - according to some rishonim.

Another obstacle is lack of energy. I have mentioned a way to solve this by combining coffee and tea in the same drink. [That was something that Israel Abussera  used to have when he got up for the midnight prayer. I heard that from one of his grandchildren (Moshe Buso) that used to prepare that for him].
Another obstacle is method. For that I have mentioned Rav Nahman's way of saying the words as fast as possible and going on with no repeats until one finishes the books, and then doing the whole over from the beginning.

[I ought to add that the same group of Rishonim [mediaeval authorities] that held this way also help from learning Aristotle's Metaphysics. Yet when it comes to that side I am not sure what exactly to include in that subject. On one hand you have the four greats Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel. But those last two seem to be in need of commentary. So as far as that goes I think Leonard Nelson is the best approach to Kant, and McTaggart the best approach to Hegel. [But people that hold with Kant are often at odds with those that go with Hegel and visa versa.]

[One of the best of this generation is Kelley Ross of the Kant Fries school. But there are also some other really great people like Ed Feser, and Huemer. There are also some others that maybe are not as great but have really hit some home runs like Habermas and Robert Hanna.]

In the beginning of laws of marriage in Rav Shach's Avi Ezri.

In the beginning of laws of marriage in Rav Shach's Avi Ezri.
There is the subject of  "kinyan Sudar" [buying by means of handkerchief]. That is is a way of buying as we see in the book of Ruth where at the end of the book it says there is a way to acquire or sell by means of taking off one's shoe and giving it to the party. Is it the category of barter, or buying by money?

So when Rav Shach writes at the end the Rambam holds kinyan sudar [buying by handkercheif] is  a kind of buying by money This is hard to understand. [note 2]

We know the Raavad and the R''id [Rav Yeshaya of Trani]] hold that way.
But the Rambam?


For after all the Rambam is pretty consistent that kinyan sudar [barter] does not work to marry a woman. [note 1] So that means barter is not any kind of buying by money. And that also goes along with the fact that exchange of a needle with a coat of armor has no law of overcharging [that is the normal law that overcharge by 1/5 is not valid]. And Rav Shach right before that explained how the Rambam explains barter as being an exchange in which there is no object causing the deal to be valid. Rather when one person picks up the object he is getting --that is when he acquires it. And when the other picks up his object that is when he acquires it.

It is the the Tosphot Ri''d and the Raavad that hold if the handkerchief is worth more than a pruta penny, then the buying is because of a buying by money. You see that in the Tosphot Ri''d who actually says so openly. That is -that Kinya Sudar will not work to acquire a woman unless the handkerchief has more than the value of a penny. And the Raavad also says that kinyan sudar will work to let a slave go free. [So he also holds kinyan sudar works as money]
So someone ought to go to the original handwritten notes of Rav Shach and see what he actually wrote there. I am sure that the names Raavad and Rambam got mixed up.

[[note 1]]. I mean to say that the normal way of marrying a woman is by money, sex or a document. But something "worth money" also works. So you could give a woman a ring for example in order to marry her, and she says "yes", and this takes place in front of two witnesses, then the marriage is valid. Same with sex or a document. However a handkerchief would not work. So what does exchange by handkerchief usually mean? It is a kind of barter. I give you a handkerchief and by that I buy from you let's say a violin. That works. The deal is sealed by that, and neither party can go back,
However the Tosphot HaRi''d holds if the handkerchief is worth more than a pruta penny that works to marry the woman. However it looks clear to me the Rambam does not hold that way.

[note 2] It looks like the Rambam would disagree with the Tosphot R''id. To the Rambam there are two kinds of exchange, barter and handkerchief [or any vessel]. You see this in laws of selling perek 5. There is exchange by barter and then in law 5 the Rambam introduces the handkerchief and there says it does not have to be worth a pruta. So the laws of exchange up until then, [e.g. vessel for vessel, but not fruit for fruit] do need to be worth at least a prura penny. And that is because barter would be as a kind of money exchange.

we have lost the idea of repentance.

The modern world is too modern. You can not imagine Eisenhower going into a church and asking to get whipped by the monks for the  deaths of D-day as repentance. But you can understand Henry II doing that for the death of  his vassal who was rebelling.
Why ? Because we have lost the idea of repentance.

So what Allan Bloom saw as a crisis of the enlightenment as opposed to the anti enlightenment as reaching a kind of peak of the wave in American universities--I see something else. The crisis of Western Civilization losing our foundations.


So you can see something important about the whole idea of Israel Salanter in the idea of the Musar movement. That was not just about any old Musar. The major idea was the Musar of the Rishonim.

Robert Hanna and "Forward to Kant"

Robert Hanna has a very nice book explaining in a detailed way the problems with the "Analytic philosophy". [That is what you might hear called "British-American," as opposed to Continental. ] He says more or less "good riddance" and the sooner the better.
He coined the phrase "Forward to Kant".

But I did not see so far his approach to Hegel or what he thinks about the Friesian School of Leonard Nelson that has a different approach to Kant that the well known Neo Kant School of Herman Cohen.

[Also I can not imagine that Michael Huemer would totally dismiss Analytic philosophy altogether since it does have a nice tendency to look at things with logical rigor.
[It occurs to me that Leonard Nelson and Hegel are not as different as all that. The world is rational. It is understandable by reason and built in reason as we see in Physics. And Reason has limits. And as Fries and Leonard Nelson argue that reason itself needs to have a starting point of premises you know but do not have an explanation for. That is non intuitive immediate knowledge. These principles all seem fine to me and I can not understand why make a conflict where there is no conflict?]


You might ask by bother? The reason is that the conflict of Jerusalem with Athens Reason and Revelation was more or less solved during the Middle Ages thus: you need both.

Trust in God with no effort was brought by Rav Israel Salanter as being mentioned in Nahmanides/(Ramban). But I have not heard where that statement of the Ramban is.

However clearly it is in the Gra in Mishlei/Proverbs.

IN the Obligations of the Hearts [Chovot Levavot] by Ibn Pakuda it is brought in a slightly different way that when one trusts in God and places all his effort towards teh serve of God then God takes away the yoke of things of this world and in particular the money issues.

However in the Mir in NY where I learned about this idea, it was understood that service of God means to learn Torah. [i.e. Gemara in depth with Rav Haim of Brisk and the other sages of Lithuania like Rav Shach.]
The only difference is that I would like to add learning Physics and Metaphysics to what is in the category of serving God.
[That is quite clear in the Rambam in the Guide and also in the Mishne Torah in a slightly round about way. But it is not his particular new idea as you see it is most of the sages of Sefarad that followed Rav Saadia Gaon.

Ashkenazim more or less rejected that approach. However you do see it somewhat in the Gra in the Translation of Euclid done by a disciple of the Gra who quotes the Gra thus: "One who lacks any knowledge in any one of the seven wisdoms will be lacking in understanding of Torah 100 times in proportion".

G Minor w75 Andante    w75 midi format  w75 in nwc format

D Major w74

It is odd that the deepest thinkers of this generation in philosophy are not really on the same page. Dr Kelley Ross is with Kant, Fries and Leonard Nelson. [Friesian School]. Michael Huemer with the reaction against Kant: i.e. G.E. Moore. [Intuitionists]. Ed Fesser totally with Aristotle and Aquinas! And it seems unlikely that even getting them into a room to discuss the issues would change much. [But who knows?]
[Also you might notice that Hegel does not have any really bright advocate. Even the best Hegel site is specifically communist!] I feel sorry for poor Hegel who really did not deserve all the misuse and abuse he got.][Hegel once had a great advocate--McTaggart who is still important.] But  nowadays mainstream  philosophy (swamp philosophy) ignores all three.

Rav Moshe Haim Lutzato (author of the great Musar book מסילת ישרים) brings in Path of God [I think] and also in the other of his more philosophical books that the purpose of Creation is the revelation of God's Oneness and that the way that happens is by "the measure one measures out to others is the measure that is measured back to him."

This I think is actually close to Hegel. Though I have not read much however I noticed in his Lectures on History is that at the very beginning he sees history as a revealing of the Wisdom of God.
Or as he puts it the revelation of Reason as the Absolute Spirit makes it known.

w73 G Major

W-73 midi file

w73 nwc

"Forward To Kant"

 "Forward To Kant" is the slogan of Robert Hanna [who was at the University of Colorado]. And that makes a lot of sense to me.

Anyway given that I have  a great liking for Kant, and that particular stream of Kant that was Leonard Nelson I have to agree with that.
And that goes along well with the idea of the Rishonim that held from learning Metaphysics as presented by Aristotle.
Why not just go straight then with Aristotle? Because of Berkeley. To some degree you really can not ignore the problems in Aristotle. And you do not get much of an answer until Kant and Hegel. But then twentieth century philosophy fell into a ditch. So the best idea is to retrace our steps forward to Kant and Hegel. 

But I would like to add that philosophy without Physics seems to be not grounded. Sometimes they are so smart they come up with really dumb conclusions. So I would suggest first getting through Physics up until String Theory and then doing Kant and Hegel

w72 A major

Language is subjective. That is the sounds emanating from my mouth to your ears have zero intrinsic meaning except for how I understand them and how you understand them. There is nothing that is independent of the speaker and the listener.
Reality on the other hand is objective. For example the ocean is blue. That fact has nothing to do with how anyone observes the ocean. It is just the fact that it absorbs all frequencies of light except blue.
So language tells you nothing about reality.

So when Wittgenstein said after reading his Tractatus no one could be the same he was quite right. People began to think that language defines reality. They fell into that trap.

B Minor w71  w71 midi  w71 nwc

w70 A Flat Major  w70 midi w70 nwc