13.6.20
The Kennedy approach to communism was to not let it come anywhere near the USA. He was willing to risk nuclear war to keep the Soviets away as the Cuban missile crisis showed.
The same approach today would make sense. Keep Communism out of the USA. But how when already it saturates all schools and universities? There is not a front to fight at since it is everywhere.
[Allan Bloom already pointed out the problem years ago in his Closing of the American Mind. His said openly that the Social Studies and Humanities departments of universities are the problem. The implication is to get them on track or close them.]
The same approach today would make sense. Keep Communism out of the USA. But how when already it saturates all schools and universities? There is not a front to fight at since it is everywhere.
[Allan Bloom already pointed out the problem years ago in his Closing of the American Mind. His said openly that the Social Studies and Humanities departments of universities are the problem. The implication is to get them on track or close them.]
12.6.20
Elon Musk is planning on settling on Mars. The way to do that is to have a moon base that can serve as a launch site. It is easier to go to Mars and bring supplies from the moon than from Earth. My feeling about this is I would rather not have mankind confined to the Solar System. So my idea of how to get to space at this point is simply to study String Theory and General Relativity to see how a worm hole might be constructed.
The stars are there. There must be some way how to get there.
Now on one hand space is hard to bend. You need lots of gravity to do so. But there is something odd about electricity that does effect space. Like the Aaronov-Bohm Effect that changes the mathematical structure of space easily. So it does not bend, but it changes its basic structure. So there must be ways of changing spacetime that does not require gravity.
The stars are there. There must be some way how to get there.
Now on one hand space is hard to bend. You need lots of gravity to do so. But there is something odd about electricity that does effect space. Like the Aaronov-Bohm Effect that changes the mathematical structure of space easily. So it does not bend, but it changes its basic structure. So there must be ways of changing spacetime that does not require gravity.
Balance of Values.
One needs a balance of values.
From my parents home I learned the importance of self sufficiency and that was said and emphasized quite openly. But there were other unspoken lessons like Menschlichkeit, [to be a decent human being with good character], common sense, balance, family values, and by example my dad was an inventor of things for the USA part time and other times he went into business for himself. He made the Infra Red telescope in space that is not being used by NASA. (See Life magazine in 1954 July pages 24-26 showing that my dad was the inventor of the Infra Red Telescope--i.e. Philip Rosenbloom) [The James Webb Space Telescope is an orbiting infrared observatory] Also Laser communication between satellites that is now being used by Space X.
So besides his example, there was a definite kind of appreciation for Math and Physics. [So this emphasis I saw in two places. First my parents home. Later I saw this in the Guide and Mishne Torah of the Rambam.
Later I went to Shar Yashuv in NY and learned also some important lessons. Learning Torah, gratitude, to avoid bitul Torah [i.e. the sin of not learning Torah when one has the opportunity to do so,], and also the emphasis on deep "iyun" [learning in depth] of Tosphot and not just to quickly skip to "Lumdut". [learning in depth along the lines of Rav Haim of Brisk]This kind of learning I never saw afterwards until I met David Bronson in Uman.
In the Mir in NY, is where I did in fact begin to appreciate the importance of "Lumdut" [Lumdut means learning in depth in a certain way--in a global fashion as you can see in Rav Haim of Brish or Rav Shach's Avi Ezri] also, plus Musar and Rav Israel Salanter, and great caution in laws that deal with monetary issues. [That is not to touch that which does not belong to you.] Plus there was a great emphasis on not speaking lashon hara [slander.]
In Israel I began to see in fact the importance of the Math and Physics thing again. Plus seeing the importance of the state of Israel, and the land of Israel.
So all together I learned a lot of very important lessons. But how to combine them and fulfill them is not so simple. Still I am grateful for the great lessons I have learned and still hope to fulfill.
[I forgot to add that I learned some great lessons from the books of Rav Nahman of Breslov and Uman, Speaking with God as I would speak with a friend. That is kind of like prayer in some ways but different in that one connects with God directly by speaking from the deepest truth that is in one's heart. Also the path of learning fast, not just fast but very fast--saying the words and going on.]
From my parents home I learned the importance of self sufficiency and that was said and emphasized quite openly. But there were other unspoken lessons like Menschlichkeit, [to be a decent human being with good character], common sense, balance, family values, and by example my dad was an inventor of things for the USA part time and other times he went into business for himself. He made the Infra Red telescope in space that is not being used by NASA. (See Life magazine in 1954 July pages 24-26 showing that my dad was the inventor of the Infra Red Telescope--i.e. Philip Rosenbloom) [The James Webb Space Telescope is an orbiting infrared observatory] Also Laser communication between satellites that is now being used by Space X.
So besides his example, there was a definite kind of appreciation for Math and Physics. [So this emphasis I saw in two places. First my parents home. Later I saw this in the Guide and Mishne Torah of the Rambam.
Later I went to Shar Yashuv in NY and learned also some important lessons. Learning Torah, gratitude, to avoid bitul Torah [i.e. the sin of not learning Torah when one has the opportunity to do so,], and also the emphasis on deep "iyun" [learning in depth] of Tosphot and not just to quickly skip to "Lumdut". [learning in depth along the lines of Rav Haim of Brisk]This kind of learning I never saw afterwards until I met David Bronson in Uman.
In the Mir in NY, is where I did in fact begin to appreciate the importance of "Lumdut" [Lumdut means learning in depth in a certain way--in a global fashion as you can see in Rav Haim of Brish or Rav Shach's Avi Ezri] also, plus Musar and Rav Israel Salanter, and great caution in laws that deal with monetary issues. [That is not to touch that which does not belong to you.] Plus there was a great emphasis on not speaking lashon hara [slander.]
In Israel I began to see in fact the importance of the Math and Physics thing again. Plus seeing the importance of the state of Israel, and the land of Israel.
So all together I learned a lot of very important lessons. But how to combine them and fulfill them is not so simple. Still I am grateful for the great lessons I have learned and still hope to fulfill.
[I forgot to add that I learned some great lessons from the books of Rav Nahman of Breslov and Uman, Speaking with God as I would speak with a friend. That is kind of like prayer in some ways but different in that one connects with God directly by speaking from the deepest truth that is in one's heart. Also the path of learning fast, not just fast but very fast--saying the words and going on.]
[Socrates at first held that virtue and knowledge are different and his opponent said it can be learned. Then through debate they changed their positions. Socrates held that Knowledge and virtue are one and in that context that meant it can be learned.]
So there is little doubt about what the good and true values one ought to stick with, The only question is the proper balance-how much to emphasize each one and which have priority and how to apply\ them in any given situation
So there is little doubt about what the good and true values one ought to stick with, The only question is the proper balance-how much to emphasize each one and which have priority and how to apply\ them in any given situation
11.6.20
A disciple of the Gra wrote a translation of Euclid into Hebrew. In the introduction he quotes the Gra ''When one lacks knowledge of the seven wisdom one will lack understanding Torah 100 times more." לפי החסרון בשבעת החכמות כן יחסר לאדם בידיעת התורה מאה פעמים יותר.
The Rambam that held learning Physics and Metaphysics are higher than Talmud.
That is from the Guide in the parable of the king in his country. The "Talmudiim" are outside the palace of the king. The physicists and philosophers are inside the palace. The Rambam could not have been clearer if had even tried.
[But I have to add here that I do not hold from watered down versions of things. (Popular introductions). Either learn the real thing, or do not learn it at all. While popular introductions can be useful to a small degree, but not as the main area of effort].
[You do not need to understand every word. Say the words and go on. See the Conversations of Rav Nahman 76 where this is explained in detail. But it is brought in the Gemara itself. And you do not need talent. You can discover more and great things even without talent. Wernher von Braun (the builder of the Saturn V that got man to the moon) failed at both Mathematics and Physics. Not did poorly. He failed. So you see you can excel.]
The Rambam that held learning Physics and Metaphysics are higher than Talmud.
That is from the Guide in the parable of the king in his country. The "Talmudiim" are outside the palace of the king. The physicists and philosophers are inside the palace. The Rambam could not have been clearer if had even tried.
[But I have to add here that I do not hold from watered down versions of things. (Popular introductions). Either learn the real thing, or do not learn it at all. While popular introductions can be useful to a small degree, but not as the main area of effort].
[You do not need to understand every word. Say the words and go on. See the Conversations of Rav Nahman 76 where this is explained in detail. But it is brought in the Gemara itself. And you do not need talent. You can discover more and great things even without talent. Wernher von Braun (the builder of the Saturn V that got man to the moon) failed at both Mathematics and Physics. Not did poorly. He failed. So you see you can excel.]
10.6.20
I noticed that someone is saying that the whole Covid thing is in order to get people to agree to accept the vaccine which will have a gene sequence that will affect and sabotage one's own DNA..
My feeling is this is probable. Covid is a hoax
How nice it would be to have a wormhole which does not drag you into the center and connects to a different universe and does not even pull you towards the sides but gives you a nice easy trip to another universe or galaxy. Would that not be really convenient?
I just saw yesterday an interesting article. https://inspirehep.net/conferences/968592
Or the PDF is here: https://s3.cern.ch/inspire-prod-files-e/ef8e5a89fc3d6bda1793928980f70abd
It is authored by someone in Russia and part of a conference on the name of Alexander Friedman about Gravity.
A non flat metric leads to a different kind of wormhole. Could this be a hint for the far distant future about how to transverse a wormhole?
This is his conclusion: "Now, we can see that our solution contains a traversible wormhole [5] at r = -r0 connecting two infinite space - times r > -r0 and r < -r0 • It consist of two asymptotically Lobachevskyan spaces. The scalar curvature takes different asymptotical values on these sheets. Moreover, while on the sheet with the biggest curvature we have attraction by the central source, but on the sheet with the lower curvature we have repulsion! Concluding, this solution seems to be interesting since it is spherically symmetric and free from singularity."
How nice it would be to have a wormhole which does not drag you into the center and connects to a different universe and does not even pull you towards the sides but gives you a nice easy trip to another universe or galaxy. Would that not be really convenient?
[Or see the other papers from that conference
This is his conclusion: "Now, we can see that our solution contains a traversible wormhole [5] at r = -r0 connecting two infinite space - times r > -r0 and r < -r0 • It consist of two asymptotically Lobachevskyan spaces. The scalar curvature takes different asymptotical values on these sheets. Moreover, while on the sheet with the biggest curvature we have attraction by the central source, but on the sheet with the lower curvature we have repulsion! Concluding, this solution seems to be interesting since it is spherically symmetric and free from singularity."
How nice it would be to have a wormhole which does not drag you into the center and connects to a different universe and does not even pull you towards the sides but gives you a nice easy trip to another universe or galaxy. Would that not be really convenient?
[Or see the other papers from that conference
9.6.20
The Gra predicted the Holocaust. He said the book of Deuteronomy is divided into ten sections. Each section correspond to 100 years of the the 6th thousand year period. That starts at 1240. So 1939 is the very end of the section called "Ki Tavo" כי תבוא". The end of the section are the curses.
When he was explaining this to his disciple Rav Haim of Voloshin Rav Haim asked him where is the Gra himself hinted at in the Torah. He said אבן שלמה יהיה לך a perfect stone will be to you. [That is a stone use as a weight for measuring. "A perfect stone" is the letters Eliyahu ben Shelomo. Taking this a bit further one can see that it is a command of the Torah to walk in the path of the Gra since it says " a perfect Stone (the Gra) will be to you."
[This ends at 2240 AD. Then a new cycle will begin, I assume on Mars. But it could be that will be to the stars.]
When he was explaining this to his disciple Rav Haim of Voloshin Rav Haim asked him where is the Gra himself hinted at in the Torah. He said אבן שלמה יהיה לך a perfect stone will be to you. [That is a stone use as a weight for measuring. "A perfect stone" is the letters Eliyahu ben Shelomo. Taking this a bit further one can see that it is a command of the Torah to walk in the path of the Gra since it says " a perfect Stone (the Gra) will be to you."
[This ends at 2240 AD. Then a new cycle will begin, I assume on Mars. But it could be that will be to the stars.]
8.6.20
mankind to the stars
SLS and Starship are two kinds of starships that are now being used to bring men to the moon and Mars. But I have to say that I can see the importance of settling on Mars, but I would rather if mankind could go to the stars. In any way is that possible? Well, there is no way of knowing until the Physics is clear. Faster than light is out. So what is left is a Einstein-Rosen bridge [Worm Hole].
How could you get this? The only way is through string theory--branes. String theory needs to be clearer in order to see if branes can do something like that. Branes are funny kinds of things because they are in fact like strings, but in other ways not like strings. That is they are not under space time. They are in space time just like strings. But things in space time can effect space time. For example Gravity. Another example is the Aahronov Bohm effect that effects easily the nature of empty space easily and simply. [Just put a solenoid near the path of a charged particle. It effects the very nature of empty space.]
See this paper by Tentyukov printed in Russia which discusses a worm hole that is possible to transverse. That is when the metric is not flat.
How could you get this? The only way is through string theory--branes. String theory needs to be clearer in order to see if branes can do something like that. Branes are funny kinds of things because they are in fact like strings, but in other ways not like strings. That is they are not under space time. They are in space time just like strings. But things in space time can effect space time. For example Gravity. Another example is the Aahronov Bohm effect that effects easily the nature of empty space easily and simply. [Just put a solenoid near the path of a charged particle. It effects the very nature of empty space.]
See this paper by Tentyukov printed in Russia which discusses a worm hole that is possible to transverse. That is when the metric is not flat.
The debate between Kant and Hegel seems to have come down to a debate between McTaggart and Leonard Nelson with Dr Kelley Ross.
Most of philosophy of the 20th was trash as Robert Hana shows in excruciating painstaking rigorous detail. In his book THE FATE OF ANALYSIS: Analytic Philosophy From Frege To The Ash-Heap of History,
So what is left after all others are gone? Hegel and and Nelson.
There are plenty of problems however with both. I can see why people like Ed Feser simply want to get back to philosophy of the Middle Ages--Aquinas's approach to Aristotle in particular.
But that does not seem like the best idea. See Thomas Reid's discussion of Berkeley. Though he disagrees it also seems clear he would not get back to Aristotle.
Most of philosophy of the 20th was trash as Robert Hana shows in excruciating painstaking rigorous detail. In his book THE FATE OF ANALYSIS: Analytic Philosophy From Frege To The Ash-Heap of History,
So what is left after all others are gone? Hegel and and Nelson.
There are plenty of problems however with both. I can see why people like Ed Feser simply want to get back to philosophy of the Middle Ages--Aquinas's approach to Aristotle in particular.
But that does not seem like the best idea. See Thomas Reid's discussion of Berkeley. Though he disagrees it also seems clear he would not get back to Aristotle.
R.Yochanan said an idol that broke by itself is forbidden for use. Reish Lakish said it is allowed [to use. [e.g. to sell.]
The Gemara [avoda zara 41b] asks on R.L. from a mishna that a ground up idol is forbidden. Answer: a decree from the scribes since it might be found and used. Rather it must be thrown into the sea.
Ritva: the same question of the Gemara applies to R Yohanan. [meaning the case RY allows it i.e. when the idolater himself nullifies it. Answer: יאוש שלא מדעת אינו יאוש giving up without knowledge is not giving up.
Rav Shach notes that this causes the original question of the Gemara to revert to RL without the benefit of the answer of the gemara.
He answers that both RL and RY agree that in fact an idol that broke by itself is no longer an idol from the Torah. All one can do is perhaps have a decree to forbid it.
My question here is that the original question of the Gemara assumes if a ground up idol is still forbidden then all the more so with the pieces still in tact. I simply am not sure how this was answered.
For some reason people do not take the problem with idolatry seriously. Clearly this was the reason the Gra signed the famous letter of excommunication and yet that fact is universally ignored.
The Gemara [avoda zara 41b] asks on R.L. from a mishna that a ground up idol is forbidden. Answer: a decree from the scribes since it might be found and used. Rather it must be thrown into the sea.
Ritva: the same question of the Gemara applies to R Yohanan. [meaning the case RY allows it i.e. when the idolater himself nullifies it. Answer: יאוש שלא מדעת אינו יאוש giving up without knowledge is not giving up.
Rav Shach notes that this causes the original question of the Gemara to revert to RL without the benefit of the answer of the gemara.
He answers that both RL and RY agree that in fact an idol that broke by itself is no longer an idol from the Torah. All one can do is perhaps have a decree to forbid it.
My question here is that the original question of the Gemara assumes if a ground up idol is still forbidden then all the more so with the pieces still in tact. I simply am not sure how this was answered.
For some reason people do not take the problem with idolatry seriously. Clearly this was the reason the Gra signed the famous letter of excommunication and yet that fact is universally ignored.
7.6.20
The major reason the Gra signed the letter of excommunication clearly is because of the problem with idolatry. The problem with worshiping a corpse is certainly no worse than worshiping a statue.
And just because people put on black clothing is that supposed to imply that somehow or other that is equivalent to keeping the holy Torah? Or supposed to make them smarter or superior to others?
So we can surely see the Gra was right and it is about time to start paying attention even though it is a bit late. Better late than never. The reason is the effects of ignoring idolatry is still with us.
And it is not just idolatry. Worship of the Sitra achra [Dark Side] is surely a more severe kind of idolatry.
And just because people put on black clothing is that supposed to imply that somehow or other that is equivalent to keeping the holy Torah? Or supposed to make them smarter or superior to others?
So we can surely see the Gra was right and it is about time to start paying attention even though it is a bit late. Better late than never. The reason is the effects of ignoring idolatry is still with us.
And it is not just idolatry. Worship of the Sitra achra [Dark Side] is surely a more severe kind of idolatry.
"All men are created equal" is a fiction but very often believing a fiction is better than not doing so.
After all the fact that this is the core belief of the USA is better than the opposite that people are created unequal which opens to door to not nice things. You do want to treat people according to their actions.
And this is a general principle. Sometimes believing in a fiction can be helpful since it will help protect you from other fictions that might be much worse.
After all the fact that this is the core belief of the USA is better than the opposite that people are created unequal which opens to door to not nice things. You do want to treat people according to their actions.
And this is a general principle. Sometimes believing in a fiction can be helpful since it will help protect you from other fictions that might be much worse.
Rav Avraham Abulafia held that Jesus was not just a tzadik [saint], but more than a tzadik. But not to the degree of any kind of way that Christians believe. Rather the Seal of the sixth day.
Clearly his approach towards the Catholic church shows that in itself. [Not just his going to debate with the pope but also in places in his writings he is highly negative towards the church.] On the other hand. So as opposed towards his attitude towards the Catholic church, his attitude towards Jesus himself was very positive.
The basic idea is this: There are souls which come from the world of Emanation. Plenty. The Avot (Patriarchs) Moshe, Aaron, Joseph, David, Rav Haim Vital. But most saints are from lower worlds. For example the children of Jacob the patriarch were all from the world of the Divine Throne [Creation.]
Regular souls of people are usually from any one of the lower worlds Creation, Formation, the Physical Universe.
One major difference between Emanation and the lower worlds is that Emanation is אלקות Divine.
Professor Moshe Idel has written plenty on Abulafia and other stream of ecstatic mystics from the Middle Ages so that would be the place to look for more information.`
[One way of understanding the insights of Rav Abulafia would be by non intuitive immediate knowledge of Leonard Nelson and Kelley Ross. That is a kind of knowledge that does not depend on experience nor on reason.
Clearly his approach towards the Catholic church shows that in itself. [Not just his going to debate with the pope but also in places in his writings he is highly negative towards the church.] On the other hand. So as opposed towards his attitude towards the Catholic church, his attitude towards Jesus himself was very positive.
The basic idea is this: There are souls which come from the world of Emanation. Plenty. The Avot (Patriarchs) Moshe, Aaron, Joseph, David, Rav Haim Vital. But most saints are from lower worlds. For example the children of Jacob the patriarch were all from the world of the Divine Throne [Creation.]
Regular souls of people are usually from any one of the lower worlds Creation, Formation, the Physical Universe.
One major difference between Emanation and the lower worlds is that Emanation is אלקות Divine.
Professor Moshe Idel has written plenty on Abulafia and other stream of ecstatic mystics from the Middle Ages so that would be the place to look for more information.`
[One way of understanding the insights of Rav Abulafia would be by non intuitive immediate knowledge of Leonard Nelson and Kelley Ross. That is a kind of knowledge that does not depend on experience nor on reason.
6.6.20
Whites did not make it because of advantages.
Africa had resource advantages, unlimited agriculture and minerals While no other land was as desolate as Northern Europe--nothing but solid ground and trees along with lots of ice. That is all Europe had until Whites came. So it is lack of advantages that led Europe to success. In fact I have asked myself why did Whites go to Europe in the first place? Were there not lots of resources in southern lands where the human race came from? Perhaps they were driven out? That is the only answer that makes sense to me. So whites made it in spite of adversity.
So what I predict is that now also they will succeed even they are being driven out and people seek to destroy them. They will succeed because of adversity.
Here is a nice example what Western Civilization has created:
Take your pick of pics of riots and attempts to destroy American cities to show the contrast,
For example: Take this picture for a prime example of "Black is Beautiful".
Which one do you prefer?
Africa had resource advantages, unlimited agriculture and minerals While no other land was as desolate as Northern Europe--nothing but solid ground and trees along with lots of ice. That is all Europe had until Whites came. So it is lack of advantages that led Europe to success. In fact I have asked myself why did Whites go to Europe in the first place? Were there not lots of resources in southern lands where the human race came from? Perhaps they were driven out? That is the only answer that makes sense to me. So whites made it in spite of adversity.
So what I predict is that now also they will succeed even they are being driven out and people seek to destroy them. They will succeed because of adversity.
Here is a nice example what Western Civilization has created:
Take your pick of pics of riots and attempts to destroy American cities to show the contrast,
For example: Take this picture for a prime example of "Black is Beautiful".
Which one do you prefer?
The sages said: one who does a kindness for whom that does not recognize it is as if they threw a stone at Markulis. If slaves have no gratitude for being freed, it would have been better not to free them.
Often you hear Christians say that slavery is inherently unjust.But such a stupid mistake can not have happened in the Middle Ages when people like Aquinas were rigorous and logical. But since the Christian world has forgotten about learning the Torah with painstaking exactitude they have fallen into a really ridiculous position and now are reaping the rewards.\
For Christians believe that a law of the Torah is wrong and unjust. In the Civil War, the North was highly committed to this even to the degree of murdering 1/2 a million Southerners based on the proposition that the North knew better. [As if murder is not also a prohibition.]
Now this issue has nothing to do with the question if Christians are obligated to keep the Law of God. That has nothing to do with it. Rather the issue is they are saying that a law of the Torah is unjust and that they know better than God what is right and wrong.
Just for a reminder to myself and others that might have forgotten about the subject let me just mention here that there are two kinds of slaves. A Hebrew slave and a gentile slave. The verses in Exodus after the Ten Commandments refer to buying a Hebrew slave. The subject of a gentile slave comes up in other places. But in short the idea that a slave goes free after 6 years is referring to a Hebrew slave. A gentile slave never goes free unless his master frees him by receiving money [not anything the value of money, but actual silver coins. Not even dollar bills which are in the eyes of the Torah just documents שטרי הדיוט. A Hebrew slave can be freed if his master accepts either money or objects that have the value of money]--or he can write a document that frees the slave.
So I suggest to people that they should not submit. Do not let the slaves take over.
The sages said:
one who does a kindness for whom that does not recognize it is as if they threw a stone at Markulis.
If slaves have no gratitude for being freed, it would have been better not to free them. [Markulis is a predecessor to Mercury but his worship was different. The way of service was to throw stones at it.]
And if they come to attack you, I recommend to take the most drastic measures possible to protect your person, home and property. Stand your ground and never give in. Never accept their narrative as if you did something wrong. Giving in a little now will mean giving in a lot more later on.
[Also I want to recommend to people to stop looking at the news and getting upset. Rather get a shot gun and sit home and learn Torah. The reason a shot gun is important is that it is easier to hit a target with a shot gun than with any other kind of weapon.]
For Christians believe that a law of the Torah is wrong and unjust. In the Civil War, the North was highly committed to this even to the degree of murdering 1/2 a million Southerners based on the proposition that the North knew better. [As if murder is not also a prohibition.]
Now this issue has nothing to do with the question if Christians are obligated to keep the Law of God. That has nothing to do with it. Rather the issue is they are saying that a law of the Torah is unjust and that they know better than God what is right and wrong.
Just for a reminder to myself and others that might have forgotten about the subject let me just mention here that there are two kinds of slaves. A Hebrew slave and a gentile slave. The verses in Exodus after the Ten Commandments refer to buying a Hebrew slave. The subject of a gentile slave comes up in other places. But in short the idea that a slave goes free after 6 years is referring to a Hebrew slave. A gentile slave never goes free unless his master frees him by receiving money [not anything the value of money, but actual silver coins. Not even dollar bills which are in the eyes of the Torah just documents שטרי הדיוט. A Hebrew slave can be freed if his master accepts either money or objects that have the value of money]--or he can write a document that frees the slave.
So I suggest to people that they should not submit. Do not let the slaves take over.
The sages said:
one who does a kindness for whom that does not recognize it is as if they threw a stone at Markulis.
If slaves have no gratitude for being freed, it would have been better not to free them. [Markulis is a predecessor to Mercury but his worship was different. The way of service was to throw stones at it.]
And if they come to attack you, I recommend to take the most drastic measures possible to protect your person, home and property. Stand your ground and never give in. Never accept their narrative as if you did something wrong. Giving in a little now will mean giving in a lot more later on.
[Also I want to recommend to people to stop looking at the news and getting upset. Rather get a shot gun and sit home and learn Torah. The reason a shot gun is important is that it is easier to hit a target with a shot gun than with any other kind of weapon.]
5.6.20
The South was right.
The South was right. על אלה רגזה הארץ על עבד כי ימלוך the verse [Proverbs] says that "Because of what shakes the ground? Because of a slave when he rules." So you see the problem with having a slave rule. This I saw in the last presidency, and for that reason stopped looking at the news. For when a slave rules everything is destroyed.
However I admit that keeping the Union together was important. But to wage war on the South because of an unjust reason makes no sense. It would have been better to negotiate their reentry into the Union. Or else perhaps just leave things alone. After all the USA and Canada are neighbors. Would it have made sense to go to war with Canada just because they did not want to be part of the Union?
Besides that you can wonder if any slaves are actually free? The Federal government was never endowed with power to take private property at random. The Congress can tax but simply to declare a persons property to no longer belong to him is not among the powers given to the Federal Government. (Nor does an amendment to free them apply when the South was forced to agree. Being forced to agree is not the same thing as agreeing.) Slaves can be set free by a document signed by the owner or by money or by injury of limb. But other than that they remain slaves.
And I want to add that the whole idea of slavery being inherently wrong seems false since now blacks are enslaving whites. [So clearly they do not think slavery is wrong.]] Not just making whites work for blacks by means of the welfare state, but now literally trying to enslave the whites. So the whole idea of slavery being wrong is not an sincere argument. Of course I think this was their intention all along as they told me openly many years ago.
Of course if whites submit, then they deserve what they get. Rather it makes more sense to resist. Do not submit under any circumstances whatsoever.
[I would think that there ought to be laws that people can protect their property. What is after all the point of the second amendment of not for that very reason. Not to grant a right, but rather to recognize a natural right a person has to property their person and property?
However I admit that keeping the Union together was important. But to wage war on the South because of an unjust reason makes no sense. It would have been better to negotiate their reentry into the Union. Or else perhaps just leave things alone. After all the USA and Canada are neighbors. Would it have made sense to go to war with Canada just because they did not want to be part of the Union?
Besides that you can wonder if any slaves are actually free? The Federal government was never endowed with power to take private property at random. The Congress can tax but simply to declare a persons property to no longer belong to him is not among the powers given to the Federal Government. (Nor does an amendment to free them apply when the South was forced to agree. Being forced to agree is not the same thing as agreeing.) Slaves can be set free by a document signed by the owner or by money or by injury of limb. But other than that they remain slaves.
And I want to add that the whole idea of slavery being inherently wrong seems false since now blacks are enslaving whites. [So clearly they do not think slavery is wrong.]] Not just making whites work for blacks by means of the welfare state, but now literally trying to enslave the whites. So the whole idea of slavery being wrong is not an sincere argument. Of course I think this was their intention all along as they told me openly many years ago.
Of course if whites submit, then they deserve what they get. Rather it makes more sense to resist. Do not submit under any circumstances whatsoever.
[I would think that there ought to be laws that people can protect their property. What is after all the point of the second amendment of not for that very reason. Not to grant a right, but rather to recognize a natural right a person has to property their person and property?
An idol that broke apart by itself, and the signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication
In tractate Avoda Zara 41b there is an argument between R Yochanan and Reish Lakish about an idol that broke apart by itself. [I.e. by an earthquake or some other cause outside of just this: that its own worshipers or other idolaters broke it.]
Reish Lakish says its is OK. [That it its pieces are no longer considered to be part of an idol which is forbidden to receive benefit from].
On this the gemara asks from this Mishna: R. Yose said a Israeli who finds an idol grinds it into pieces or throws it into the sea. The sages disagreed and asked if just grinding is enough some can find the dust and use it. and we know that is not good from the verse לא ידבק בידך מאומה מן החרם ["..so that nothing from the herem will stick with you."] that says one can not derive any benefit from an idol.
For this reason it seems to me that the religious world that worships people ought to be avoided. It is not enough not to worship idols but also to derive no benefit from them. This would explain the signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication [herem] since the laws of excommunication in fact entail this exact point.
The fact that this universally ignored does not make it invalid. Laws of the Torah are objective morality--that means not dependent on what people think or do.
Reish Lakish says its is OK. [That it its pieces are no longer considered to be part of an idol which is forbidden to receive benefit from].
On this the gemara asks from this Mishna: R. Yose said a Israeli who finds an idol grinds it into pieces or throws it into the sea. The sages disagreed and asked if just grinding is enough some can find the dust and use it. and we know that is not good from the verse לא ידבק בידך מאומה מן החרם ["..so that nothing from the herem will stick with you."] that says one can not derive any benefit from an idol.
For this reason it seems to me that the religious world that worships people ought to be avoided. It is not enough not to worship idols but also to derive no benefit from them. This would explain the signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication [herem] since the laws of excommunication in fact entail this exact point.
The fact that this universally ignored does not make it invalid. Laws of the Torah are objective morality--that means not dependent on what people think or do.
4.6.20
The general approach of the Gra was no matter what the troubles are the answer is always just one thing: to learn Torah. This I would have to agree with even though I would expand the definition of learning Torah to include Physics and Metaphysics. That is well defined in the Guide for the Perplexed as referring to these subjects of the ancient Greeks. [Also on the first page of the Obligations of the Heart.] Metaphysics is not mysticism.
So the minimum would be to get through the two Talmuds, and the basic Physics up to String Theory. Metaphysics though I have a hard time to figure out what ought to be included. I am thinking besides Aristotle's books to include Kant and Leonard Nelson.
The religious world is a kind of Dark Side
The major problem I see in the religious world is a kind of Dark Side (Sitra Achra) aspect that seems to have settled on it and leaves its odor on everything. To some degree I thought I could avoid that by learning straight Torah in two great yeshivas the Mir in NY and Shar Yashuv.
But that turned out not to be as effective as I had thought. The reason is the verse in psalms סביב רשעים יתהלכון [round about go the wicked]. That is the Sitra Achra.
So as one tries to come to straight pure Torah as is learned in the Mir or Ponovitch, or any of the great Litvak yeshivas, there is this problem that holiness is surrounded by the Dark Side. And even if you manage to get inside the straight Torah world, the Sitra Achra (Dark Side) has anyway made its nest there.
What one might do is simply to get the essentials and go through them as best he can on his own. That would be the two Talmuds (with Tosphot and Maharsha on one, and the two side commentaries on the Yerushalmi]. [Or just even straight with no commentary at all in order to at least get through material at least once.] Then Rav Shach's Avi Ezri and Rav Haim of Brisk's Hidushei HaRambam. Those two books give one a basic idea of how to get into the depths of the Talmud.
[I have mentioned before this that Rav Nahman of Breslov noted the problem with Torah scholars that are demons in the LeM I:12 and I:28. He hints to this also in LeM I:8. However the point here is bit different. He I am saying that as a result of Torah scholars that are demons the whole religious world is infected. So the cure is not simple. Normally one would go to a straight Litvak Yeshiva based on the Gra in order to learn authentic Torah, not Torah of the Sitra Achra (Dark Side.) However it is nowadays hard to avoid the Sitra Achra even there.]
But that turned out not to be as effective as I had thought. The reason is the verse in psalms סביב רשעים יתהלכון [round about go the wicked]. That is the Sitra Achra.
So as one tries to come to straight pure Torah as is learned in the Mir or Ponovitch, or any of the great Litvak yeshivas, there is this problem that holiness is surrounded by the Dark Side. And even if you manage to get inside the straight Torah world, the Sitra Achra (Dark Side) has anyway made its nest there.
What one might do is simply to get the essentials and go through them as best he can on his own. That would be the two Talmuds (with Tosphot and Maharsha on one, and the two side commentaries on the Yerushalmi]. [Or just even straight with no commentary at all in order to at least get through material at least once.] Then Rav Shach's Avi Ezri and Rav Haim of Brisk's Hidushei HaRambam. Those two books give one a basic idea of how to get into the depths of the Talmud.
[I have mentioned before this that Rav Nahman of Breslov noted the problem with Torah scholars that are demons in the LeM I:12 and I:28. He hints to this also in LeM I:8. However the point here is bit different. He I am saying that as a result of Torah scholars that are demons the whole religious world is infected. So the cure is not simple. Normally one would go to a straight Litvak Yeshiva based on the Gra in order to learn authentic Torah, not Torah of the Sitra Achra (Dark Side.) However it is nowadays hard to avoid the Sitra Achra even there.]
3.6.20
Dr. Kelley Ross was gracious to answer my question about the riots. He wrote: "It occurs to me that this is Antifa’s equivalent of the Tet Offensive. They are hoping for war."
I think that means that Kelley Ross thinks the Left is hoping to dismantle the very Constitution of the USA and impose a socialist [Communist] dictatorship.
[The Tet Offensive was that that very idea. To attack cities in South Vietnam in order to cause the South to get rid of their government and accept Communism.
That sounds serious to me. I thought they were simply trying to burn down American cities. To dismantle the Constitution seems like it would be the worst disaster in human history. But anyway I have been thinking that a Mad Max scenario [where civilization collapses] is very much probable except for pockets of where Western Civilization will continue and prosper.
I think that means that Kelley Ross thinks the Left is hoping to dismantle the very Constitution of the USA and impose a socialist [Communist] dictatorship.
[The Tet Offensive was that that very idea. To attack cities in South Vietnam in order to cause the South to get rid of their government and accept Communism.
That sounds serious to me. I thought they were simply trying to burn down American cities. To dismantle the Constitution seems like it would be the worst disaster in human history. But anyway I have been thinking that a Mad Max scenario [where civilization collapses] is very much probable except for pockets of where Western Civilization will continue and prosper.
The odd position of time and space in the Bell's inequality does seem to have a lot to do with Kant. [That space and time are just ways of measuring things. But they exist like all dinge an sich (things in themselves)-they exist but reason has no access to understand them.].] [If the electron is here then it has no value for momentum. Not zero or anything else.Not just that there is conspiracy to keep us from knowing what it is.] That is,-- you first have to get out of the idea that there is action at a distance. All Bell's inequality means is that there are two possibilities, (1) things have no values in space and time until they interact. Or (2) action at a distance. But we know action at a distance is not true because of Relativity. So we are left with things having no classical values until measured.
SEE Gellmann There is nothing non-local about Einstein Podolsky Rosen
The idea that things have no value of space or time is not so strange. In Lemaitre's article in Nature 1931 where he discusses the big bang that he predicted he says that space and time had to have begun after the first quantum had already split into many others. So there is obvious some sub-layer underneath space and time. That is clear anyway from the Aronov-Bohm effect where you see that space has already a mathematical structure.
From other directions, Kant is being revived. Robert Hanna went through a painstaking rigorous detailed critique of 20th century analytic philosophy showing it is ready for the trash bin. [Even G.E. Moore.] But Neo Kantian-ism was discarded for other good reasons.
So by default one is left with Leonard Nelson's approach to Kant or Kelley Ross's synthesis of Nelson.
Note that Nelson has been ignored almost universally.
On the other hand I can imagine that some might want to revive the other Neo Kant approaches of Marburg, Heidelberg or Husserl. Frankly, I would be happy with anything that would get back to Kant. [Robert Hanna seems to have a soft spot in his heart for Husserl. Still he says openly that he was refuted. There simply is no one left on the playing field except Kant and Leonard Nelson.]
Still that leaves the question about Hegel. To me it seems Hegel is fine if you understand him with McTaggart.
[I like McTaggart a lot, but I ought to mention that he provided a convenient target for those who wanted to attack Hegel and assumed McTaggart=Hegel. Also, they assume that the Metaphysical State was Hegel's, and you can see that Hobhouse thinks that way. Even though his critique on the Metaphysical State is not actually directly against Hegel. But seeing things in the former USSR without the force of the state I got a good taste of a good argument for the state. [Before the Soviet State, no one was going to have an American kind of Democracy in Russia and even today the whole idea seems absurd. You can not have an American kind of democracy without Americans! And that takes many years to develop that kind of mentality. Maybe it is DNA? or whatever. ]
[I wanted to mention that there is a lot of confusion about Bell. Bell's inequality does not
disprove causality. Rather it can prove one of two things. Either no causality or that things have no values in space and time until measured. Since we know there is causality because of GPS which depends on Relativity. So what we know now is things have no value in space and time until measured. And that is not all that different from how Lemaitre explained the beginning of the universe where space and time did not exist until after there were already a bunch of quantum particles around. I saw this in the blog the reference frame [I think] later it became clear in my own study of QM, GPS is a nice proof of Relativity since it would not work unless both Special and General Relativity are true.
]
SEE Gellmann There is nothing non-local about Einstein Podolsky Rosen
The idea that things have no value of space or time is not so strange. In Lemaitre's article in Nature 1931 where he discusses the big bang that he predicted he says that space and time had to have begun after the first quantum had already split into many others. So there is obvious some sub-layer underneath space and time. That is clear anyway from the Aronov-Bohm effect where you see that space has already a mathematical structure.
From other directions, Kant is being revived. Robert Hanna went through a painstaking rigorous detailed critique of 20th century analytic philosophy showing it is ready for the trash bin. [Even G.E. Moore.] But Neo Kantian-ism was discarded for other good reasons.
So by default one is left with Leonard Nelson's approach to Kant or Kelley Ross's synthesis of Nelson.
Note that Nelson has been ignored almost universally.
On the other hand I can imagine that some might want to revive the other Neo Kant approaches of Marburg, Heidelberg or Husserl. Frankly, I would be happy with anything that would get back to Kant. [Robert Hanna seems to have a soft spot in his heart for Husserl. Still he says openly that he was refuted. There simply is no one left on the playing field except Kant and Leonard Nelson.]
Still that leaves the question about Hegel. To me it seems Hegel is fine if you understand him with McTaggart.
[I like McTaggart a lot, but I ought to mention that he provided a convenient target for those who wanted to attack Hegel and assumed McTaggart=Hegel. Also, they assume that the Metaphysical State was Hegel's, and you can see that Hobhouse thinks that way. Even though his critique on the Metaphysical State is not actually directly against Hegel. But seeing things in the former USSR without the force of the state I got a good taste of a good argument for the state. [Before the Soviet State, no one was going to have an American kind of Democracy in Russia and even today the whole idea seems absurd. You can not have an American kind of democracy without Americans! And that takes many years to develop that kind of mentality. Maybe it is DNA? or whatever. ]
[I wanted to mention that there is a lot of confusion about Bell. Bell's inequality does not
disprove causality. Rather it can prove one of two things. Either no causality or that things have no values in space and time until measured. Since we know there is causality because of GPS which depends on Relativity. So what we know now is things have no value in space and time until measured. And that is not all that different from how Lemaitre explained the beginning of the universe where space and time did not exist until after there were already a bunch of quantum particles around. I saw this in the blog the reference frame [I think] later it became clear in my own study of QM, GPS is a nice proof of Relativity since it would not work unless both Special and General Relativity are true.
]
So there is something below time and space.
How do you have a beginning of the universe before there was even space or time. How can something start before something else when there is no "time"?
Yet that is exactly the idea of Lemaitre in an article about the expansion of the universe--the big bang. [The article was published in 1931 in Nature. That is: that time and space existed only as statistical notions before there were lots of quantum particles.] [Lemaitre's original discovery of the expansion if the universe was from 1927.]
This fits well with the Aspect experiment which shows that nature violates Bell's inequality. That is-- there are no hidden variables. Particles have no values of space and time before they interact.
So there is something below time and space.
Yet that is exactly the idea of Lemaitre in an article about the expansion of the universe--the big bang. [The article was published in 1931 in Nature. That is: that time and space existed only as statistical notions before there were lots of quantum particles.] [Lemaitre's original discovery of the expansion if the universe was from 1927.]
This fits well with the Aspect experiment which shows that nature violates Bell's inequality. That is-- there are no hidden variables. Particles have no values of space and time before they interact.
So there is something below time and space.
The religious world has a problem with worship of people.
Worship of people is an odd permutation of the old evil inclination of idolatry. But there is is some fine line. I can see the importance of straight pure learning Torah in Shar Yashuv and the Mir. But along with that there is a surrounding penumbra of the religious world which does worship people.
So one does need a bit of discernment. That is why I emphasize the Gra and Rav Shach -because in the straight Litvak yeshiva world you get mainly straight Torah without the accompanying problem of idolatry that is the main problem of the religious world.
I mean to say that the definition of idolatry is not just to bow down to images or a statue. It is also not as wide as I have often heard. I spent a good deal of time with my learning partner David Bronson, on the Gemara in Sanhedrin pages 61-64 to get a clear idea of what it is.
My main conclusion is that religious devotion to anything other than God alone [the First Cause, with no form or image] is idolatry. So it does not have to be molten images.
An examples of idolatry that exists in the religious world is "graves of the righteous". But this is just one example.
So one does need a bit of discernment. That is why I emphasize the Gra and Rav Shach -because in the straight Litvak yeshiva world you get mainly straight Torah without the accompanying problem of idolatry that is the main problem of the religious world.
I mean to say that the definition of idolatry is not just to bow down to images or a statue. It is also not as wide as I have often heard. I spent a good deal of time with my learning partner David Bronson, on the Gemara in Sanhedrin pages 61-64 to get a clear idea of what it is.
My main conclusion is that religious devotion to anything other than God alone [the First Cause, with no form or image] is idolatry. So it does not have to be molten images.
An examples of idolatry that exists in the religious world is "graves of the righteous". But this is just one example.
2.6.20
There is an odd thing about "Torah shelo Lashma" [Torah not for its own sake]. It seems different than using Torah to make money.
The way using Torah to make money is often justified by a statement of the Rambam "not just the tribe of Levi, but all who put it in their heart to turn from the vanities of this world and learn Torah for its own sake, God will provide for their needs". This in no way contradicts the idea of the Rambam that one who uses Torah to make money has no portion in the next world. Rather he is simply saying that God will provide. This can not be used to justify using Torah to make a living.
This seems different than "Torah shelo Lishma" (not for its own sake) which is what the sages say to learn for honor. That is there is an intention to receive a side benefit that come automatically. People honor one who learns. But that is a lot different than intending not just a side benefit, but using it specifically to get that benefit [e.g. as a means of making money].
The way using Torah to make money is often justified by a statement of the Rambam "not just the tribe of Levi, but all who put it in their heart to turn from the vanities of this world and learn Torah for its own sake, God will provide for their needs". This in no way contradicts the idea of the Rambam that one who uses Torah to make money has no portion in the next world. Rather he is simply saying that God will provide. This can not be used to justify using Torah to make a living.
This seems different than "Torah shelo Lishma" (not for its own sake) which is what the sages say to learn for honor. That is there is an intention to receive a side benefit that come automatically. People honor one who learns. But that is a lot different than intending not just a side benefit, but using it specifically to get that benefit [e.g. as a means of making money].
Background In the Mishna in Sanhedrin there is a list of things for which one loses his portion in the next world. "Reading outside books" is one.
One aspect of "outside books" ספרים חיצונים that is hard to understand is that the way the Rif and Rosh understand it, it refers to books that create their own explanations of verses of Torah than are not from the Gemara or midrash. If we would accept this literally there is no book in the religious world that would be allowed to read. All of them come up with explanations of verses that are not from the Gemara or midrash.
Background In the Mishna in Sanhedrin there is a list of things for which one loses his portion in the next world. "Reading outside books" ספרים חיצונים is on the list. The Rif and Rosh explain that refers not to science, but rather books that explain the Torah-- but in ways other than what is in the Gemara. The issue is not that they are saying things against Torah. The whole point is that it is pseudo Torah. As long as it is not from the sages it is by definition Torah of the Dark Side. This would mean almost all books in the religious world nowadays.
[The issue is maybe not as important as another more serious issue: worship of people. Why is it that in the religious world this is thought to be OK I am not sure.]
Background In the Mishna in Sanhedrin there is a list of things for which one loses his portion in the next world. "Reading outside books" ספרים חיצונים is on the list. The Rif and Rosh explain that refers not to science, but rather books that explain the Torah-- but in ways other than what is in the Gemara. The issue is not that they are saying things against Torah. The whole point is that it is pseudo Torah. As long as it is not from the sages it is by definition Torah of the Dark Side. This would mean almost all books in the religious world nowadays.
[The issue is maybe not as important as another more serious issue: worship of people. Why is it that in the religious world this is thought to be OK I am not sure.]
I discovered the best way to learn is the idea of "Girsa" [saying the words in order and going on] as I mentioned a few times before. But the thing that prevents people from learning fast is they do not know that the words get absorbed in some sub-level of the mind and there get processed. If people would be aware of this I think everyone would be able to learn the Oral and Written Law, Physics and Mathematics. Easily. Not that everyone would become geniuses, but the main obstacle would be removed--that people imagine to themselves that they do not understand when in fact once they have said the words in order, the deeper levels of the soul do absorb the knowledge and process it and eventually they will understand even plainly and simply.
[People also need the idea that learning Torah is a commandment. Not just that but also that "Bitul Torah" is a sin. But I have to admit that my idea of learning Torah includes Physics and Metaphysics as the Rishonim that follow Saadia Gaon hold. [However plenty of Rishonim do not hold that way. They do not hold of Aristotle at all.] But my idea of learning Torah is also restrictive in terms of the idea that you see in the Rif and Rosh about "outside books" which they define as anything that explains Torah in any way that is not open in the Gemara or Midrash. So that means books that explain Physics are not "outside books"since they are not talking about Torah. [So "outside books" does not mean what most people think it means. Just the opposite. Almost all books that people think are OK nowadays are actually the very things that the sages forbid.]
Another incentive to learn is an idea of Rav Haim of Voloshin a disciple of the Gra.
That is that when one gets up in the morning a decides to learn Torah the whole day, then there are removed from him all obstacles, all yoke of government or of making a living. And that day he will be successful in Torah. That makes more sense than most of what people spend time doing
[People also need the idea that learning Torah is a commandment. Not just that but also that "Bitul Torah" is a sin. But I have to admit that my idea of learning Torah includes Physics and Metaphysics as the Rishonim that follow Saadia Gaon hold. [However plenty of Rishonim do not hold that way. They do not hold of Aristotle at all.] But my idea of learning Torah is also restrictive in terms of the idea that you see in the Rif and Rosh about "outside books" which they define as anything that explains Torah in any way that is not open in the Gemara or Midrash. So that means books that explain Physics are not "outside books"since they are not talking about Torah. [So "outside books" does not mean what most people think it means. Just the opposite. Almost all books that people think are OK nowadays are actually the very things that the sages forbid.]
Another incentive to learn is an idea of Rav Haim of Voloshin a disciple of the Gra.
That is that when one gets up in the morning a decides to learn Torah the whole day, then there are removed from him all obstacles, all yoke of government or of making a living. And that day he will be successful in Torah. That makes more sense than most of what people spend time doing
1.6.20
The USA did not start out alone. It was a continuation of the English model of government.
[Really the colonists just wanted to continue as English citizens, not serfs of Parliament. When the king refused to back them up, then they revolted.] But now the situation is different, some in the USA do not want a continuation of the English form of government [with a king, Parliament, house of commons Bill of Rights etc.] Rather Marxism along a Leninist model--that is the rule of a political party along lines of Marx.]
So here it does not look like there is much insight that can be gained from history. But I feel there is always some insight to be gained from history; but here it is not clear from what historical examples can provide insight.
But I feel there must be somehow, somewhere, an insight.
Even the Civil War does not seem to help much since both North and South wanted just a straight continuation of the principles of the Constitution.
Looting and chaos do not seem like very good answers.
[Allan Bloom in his Closing of the American Mind focused on education in universities. That might be a good place to start. Take his suggestion and close the humanities and social studies departments. Not that he was saying at first to do that. Rather his thought was they might rise to the challenge. But since they have not, maybe the best thing is to simply turn off their funding from state and federal government.
[I mean you can not simply close them. But you can vote to stop wasting money on "Gender studies" and all the other pseudo intellectualism.] [See the Bezmenov utube video about infiltration into the universities.]
Another suggestion on the positive side is to learn the Federalist Papers.
It is not that I am against communism automatically. Rather a lot depends on what comes before. If you have a situation of civil war in Russia, then bringing in the Red Army made sense.But to do the same in the USA would be a terrible idea. In my view the Constitution of the USA is the best of the best.
[Really the colonists just wanted to continue as English citizens, not serfs of Parliament. When the king refused to back them up, then they revolted.] But now the situation is different, some in the USA do not want a continuation of the English form of government [with a king, Parliament, house of commons Bill of Rights etc.] Rather Marxism along a Leninist model--that is the rule of a political party along lines of Marx.]
So here it does not look like there is much insight that can be gained from history. But I feel there is always some insight to be gained from history; but here it is not clear from what historical examples can provide insight.
But I feel there must be somehow, somewhere, an insight.
Even the Civil War does not seem to help much since both North and South wanted just a straight continuation of the principles of the Constitution.
Looting and chaos do not seem like very good answers.
[Allan Bloom in his Closing of the American Mind focused on education in universities. That might be a good place to start. Take his suggestion and close the humanities and social studies departments. Not that he was saying at first to do that. Rather his thought was they might rise to the challenge. But since they have not, maybe the best thing is to simply turn off their funding from state and federal government.
[I mean you can not simply close them. But you can vote to stop wasting money on "Gender studies" and all the other pseudo intellectualism.] [See the Bezmenov utube video about infiltration into the universities.]
Another suggestion on the positive side is to learn the Federalist Papers.
It is not that I am against communism automatically. Rather a lot depends on what comes before. If you have a situation of civil war in Russia, then bringing in the Red Army made sense.But to do the same in the USA would be a terrible idea. In my view the Constitution of the USA is the best of the best.
31.5.20
The best of the philosophers nowadays seem unified that there is a need to go forward to Kant and get out of the insane philosophies of the twentieth century.
Certainly you see this with Kelley Ross [of the Kant Fries School of thought.] But he is clearly thinking only of one possible approach to Kant--that of Leonard Nelson.
Also with Robert Hanna you see this same approach of the need to get back to Kant.
However among the best is Huemer and he seems to be with the Analytic school and specifically G.E. Moore [the Intuitionists.]
So what can you do? I do not feel like discounting completely all the other approaches to Kant. [Marburg, Heidelberg, Gottingen]. I can not even figure out if all of these great people are simply talking past each other. The same points get addressed in only slightly different ways.
And for some reason, they do not seem that interested in Hegel. [Though there is a great spokesman for Hegel, McTaggart] [I also do not feel like discounting Hegel just because he was misused by the Communists.] [Not everyone is happy with McTaggart. They say he provided a good target for those that wanted to attack Hegel. Still he seems like the best defense. Besides that not everything was wrong.]
But of all of these, only Robert Hanna made a detailed study of the shaky foundations of all so called Analytic philosophy of the 20th century.
[As R Hanna noted that not only did it all start out with shaky foundations, but became downright insane after Quine. And then after a good number of people showed Quine to be completely absurd still that made not the slightest dent.]
You can see why people like Ed Feser just want to go back to Medieval Philosophy. But I can not see that because the difficulties there are real--as even Thomas Reid pointed out. No matter how absurd you think Berkeley's idealism is, you still need some way of answering him. And only Kant did that.
[And maybe Hegel also.]
But of all of these, only Robert Hanna made a detailed study of the shaky foundations of all so called Analytic philosophy of the 20th century.
[As R Hanna noted that not only did it all start out with shaky foundations, but became downright insane after Quine. And then after a good number of people showed Quine to be completely absurd still that made not the slightest dent.]
You can see why people like Ed Feser just want to go back to Medieval Philosophy. But I can not see that because the difficulties there are real--as even Thomas Reid pointed out. No matter how absurd you think Berkeley's idealism is, you still need some way of answering him. And only Kant did that.
[And maybe Hegel also.]
30.5.20
important insight of Rav Shach
I would like to bring an important insight of Rav Shach about a subject that comes up in Bava Kama page 18 and 19. And I would like to add a comment of my own.
Rav Ashi asks, "Is kicking pebbles a change?" The gemara answers this by suggesting by the fact that Rava asks, "Does warning apply to kicking pebbles?"
The way Tosphot understands this I have never been able to figure out but Rav Shach focuses on understanding the Rambam [Damages of money 2:5-6] who says if an animal kicked pebbles which caused damage [not just knocked it its normal way of walking)? In public domain no obligations, but if the injured party grabs 1/4 he keeps it for this is a doubt. If in private domain then 1/4 is obligated, and if the injured party grabs 1/2 he can keep it.
The question is, "Why?" In the first half the Rambam is saying we do not know if kicking is a "Shinui" (change) from the norm. Then right away in the next sentence he says we do know.
Rav Shach explains this. The question he says if kicking is a shinui and thus becomes "keren" horn and fall out of the category of damages caused by the foot of the animal [hof].
So in the public domain if it is not a change the owner is not obligated in anything. If it is a change and thus "Keren" HaTam which is half damages but here because of the doubt he gets only 1/4.
In the private domain if it is not a change the 1/2 damages would be required to pay for, but if a change then 1/4. And this kind of change can go on Keren [horn] also.
Thus far is Rav Shach. I would like to say that the part about the private domain is clear from the gemara. If we do not know if pebbles by kicking is a change then things are clear. If not, then it is 1/2 damages. If yes then a forth--exactly as the Rambam writes. The question is the public domain. If it is a change and thus keren [horn] it should be that side of the doubt would require 1/2 damages, not the fourth that the Rambam states there. [If it is not a change then clearly there is no obligation at all since it is hof in a public domain.]
The way to answer this is something I noticed a few years ago when I was looking at Bava Metzia page 100. I saw based on the Gemara there that the Rambam has a opinion about Sumchos and the Sages that is more complex than is generally known. The idea is that is a domain that is public we go by Sumchos. There is no prior status {Hazaka}. This is like the Rashbam there on that page.
So that helps us here in Bava Kama. Since the issue is damages in a public domain there is no "hazaka" and in that case we go by Sumchos: Money in doubt is divided. So here in the public domain only 1/4 of the damages can be seized by the injured party, not 1/2.
However it is clear to me that Rav Shach answers the question about the 1/4 damages in the public domain in a different way. [Though he is not talking about this specific issue openly.] He holds pebbles and thus change with pebbles applies not just to tooth as a well known but even to keren HaTam. So the fact that the kicking of the pebbles is a Keren Hatam in a public domain would go down to 1/4 just like kicking pebbles in the domain of the injured party would go down to 1/4.
So is my answer valid at all? I would have to go back and look up the Gemara in Bava Metzia 100 and the Rambam about Sumchos to see..
__________________________________________________________________________________
An important insight of רב שך about a subject that comes up in בבא קמא page 18 and 19. And I would like to add a comment of my own. רב אשי asks, "Is kicking צרורות a שינוי?" The גמרא answers this by suggesting by the fact that רבא asks, "Does העדאה apply to kicking צרורות?"
רב שך focuses on understanding the רמב''ם who says if an animal בעטה צרורות which caused היזק, not just knocked it its normal way of walking? In רשות הרבים no חיוב, but if the ניזק grabs רביע he keeps it for this is a ספק. If in רשות הניזק then forth is obligated, and if the injured party grabs חצי נזק he can keep it. The question is, "Why?" In the first half the רמב''ם is saying we do not know if בעיטה is a שינוי from the norm. Then right away in the next sentence he says we do know. רב שך explains this. The question he says if kicking is a שינוי and thus becomes קרן השור horn and fall out of the category of damages caused by the רגל of the animal. So in the public domain if it is not a change the owner is not obligated in anything. If it is a change and thus קרן התם which is half damages but here because of the doubt he gets only fourth. In the רשות הניזק if it is not a שינוי the half damages would be required to pay for, but if a שינוי then fourth. And this kind of שינוי can go on קרן השור also. Thus far is רב שך. I would like to say that the part about the רשות הניזק is clear from the גמרא. If we do not know if צרורות by בעיטה is a שינוי then things are clear. If not, then it is half נזק. If yes then a fourth, exactly as the רמב''ם writes. The question is the רשות הרבים. If it is a שינוי and thus קרן it should be that side of the ספק would require חצי נזק, not the fourth that the רמב''ם states there. If it is not a שינוי then clearly there is no obligation at all since it is רגל in a public domain. The way to answer this is something I noticed a few years ago when I was looking at בבא מציעא page 100. I saw based on the גמרא there that the רמב''ם has a opinion about סומכוס and the Sages that is more complex than is generally known. The idea is that is a רשות הרבים we go by סומכוס. There is no חזקת ממון. This is like the רשב''ם there on that page.So that helps us here in בבא קמא. Since the issue is damages in a public domain there is no חזקת ממון and in that case we go by סומכוס. ממון המוטל בספק חולקים. So here in the public domain only forth of the damages can be seized by the injured party, not half.
However it is clear to me that רב שך answers the question about the רבע damages in the רשות הרבים in a different way. He holds צרורות and thus שינוי בצרורות applies to שן even to קרן התם. So the fact that the kicking of the צרורות is a קרן התם in a רשות הרבים would go down to 1/4 just like kicking pebbles in the domain of the ניזק would go down to רביע.
עם זאת ברור לי שרב שך עונה על השאלה על נזקי בעיטה בצרורות ברשות הרבים אחרת. נזק על ידי צרורות הוא שינוי על גם בשן ואפילו בקרן התם. כך שהבעיטה של צרורות היא קרן התם ברשות הרבים והייתה יורדת לרביע נזק כמו שיניו בצרורות בתחום הניזק הייתה יורדת לרביע
Rav Ashi asks, "Is kicking pebbles a change?" The gemara answers this by suggesting by the fact that Rava asks, "Does warning apply to kicking pebbles?"
The way Tosphot understands this I have never been able to figure out but Rav Shach focuses on understanding the Rambam [Damages of money 2:5-6] who says if an animal kicked pebbles which caused damage [not just knocked it its normal way of walking)? In public domain no obligations, but if the injured party grabs 1/4 he keeps it for this is a doubt. If in private domain then 1/4 is obligated, and if the injured party grabs 1/2 he can keep it.
The question is, "Why?" In the first half the Rambam is saying we do not know if kicking is a "Shinui" (change) from the norm. Then right away in the next sentence he says we do know.
Rav Shach explains this. The question he says if kicking is a shinui and thus becomes "keren" horn and fall out of the category of damages caused by the foot of the animal [hof].
So in the public domain if it is not a change the owner is not obligated in anything. If it is a change and thus "Keren" HaTam which is half damages but here because of the doubt he gets only 1/4.
In the private domain if it is not a change the 1/2 damages would be required to pay for, but if a change then 1/4. And this kind of change can go on Keren [horn] also.
Thus far is Rav Shach. I would like to say that the part about the private domain is clear from the gemara. If we do not know if pebbles by kicking is a change then things are clear. If not, then it is 1/2 damages. If yes then a forth--exactly as the Rambam writes. The question is the public domain. If it is a change and thus keren [horn] it should be that side of the doubt would require 1/2 damages, not the fourth that the Rambam states there. [If it is not a change then clearly there is no obligation at all since it is hof in a public domain.]
The way to answer this is something I noticed a few years ago when I was looking at Bava Metzia page 100. I saw based on the Gemara there that the Rambam has a opinion about Sumchos and the Sages that is more complex than is generally known. The idea is that is a domain that is public we go by Sumchos. There is no prior status {Hazaka}. This is like the Rashbam there on that page.
So that helps us here in Bava Kama. Since the issue is damages in a public domain there is no "hazaka" and in that case we go by Sumchos: Money in doubt is divided. So here in the public domain only 1/4 of the damages can be seized by the injured party, not 1/2.
However it is clear to me that Rav Shach answers the question about the 1/4 damages in the public domain in a different way. [Though he is not talking about this specific issue openly.] He holds pebbles and thus change with pebbles applies not just to tooth as a well known but even to keren HaTam. So the fact that the kicking of the pebbles is a Keren Hatam in a public domain would go down to 1/4 just like kicking pebbles in the domain of the injured party would go down to 1/4.
So is my answer valid at all? I would have to go back and look up the Gemara in Bava Metzia 100 and the Rambam about Sumchos to see..
__________________________________________________________________________________
An important insight of רב שך about a subject that comes up in בבא קמא page 18 and 19. And I would like to add a comment of my own. רב אשי asks, "Is kicking צרורות a שינוי?" The גמרא answers this by suggesting by the fact that רבא asks, "Does העדאה apply to kicking צרורות?"
רב שך focuses on understanding the רמב''ם who says if an animal בעטה צרורות which caused היזק, not just knocked it its normal way of walking? In רשות הרבים no חיוב, but if the ניזק grabs רביע he keeps it for this is a ספק. If in רשות הניזק then forth is obligated, and if the injured party grabs חצי נזק he can keep it. The question is, "Why?" In the first half the רמב''ם is saying we do not know if בעיטה is a שינוי from the norm. Then right away in the next sentence he says we do know. רב שך explains this. The question he says if kicking is a שינוי and thus becomes קרן השור horn and fall out of the category of damages caused by the רגל of the animal. So in the public domain if it is not a change the owner is not obligated in anything. If it is a change and thus קרן התם which is half damages but here because of the doubt he gets only fourth. In the רשות הניזק if it is not a שינוי the half damages would be required to pay for, but if a שינוי then fourth. And this kind of שינוי can go on קרן השור also. Thus far is רב שך. I would like to say that the part about the רשות הניזק is clear from the גמרא. If we do not know if צרורות by בעיטה is a שינוי then things are clear. If not, then it is half נזק. If yes then a fourth, exactly as the רמב''ם writes. The question is the רשות הרבים. If it is a שינוי and thus קרן it should be that side of the ספק would require חצי נזק, not the fourth that the רמב''ם states there. If it is not a שינוי then clearly there is no obligation at all since it is רגל in a public domain. The way to answer this is something I noticed a few years ago when I was looking at בבא מציעא page 100. I saw based on the גמרא there that the רמב''ם has a opinion about סומכוס and the Sages that is more complex than is generally known. The idea is that is a רשות הרבים we go by סומכוס. There is no חזקת ממון. This is like the רשב''ם there on that page.So that helps us here in בבא קמא. Since the issue is damages in a public domain there is no חזקת ממון and in that case we go by סומכוס. ממון המוטל בספק חולקים. So here in the public domain only forth of the damages can be seized by the injured party, not half.
However it is clear to me that רב שך answers the question about the רבע damages in the רשות הרבים in a different way. He holds צרורות and thus שינוי בצרורות applies to שן even to קרן התם. So the fact that the kicking of the צרורות is a קרן התם in a רשות הרבים would go down to 1/4 just like kicking pebbles in the domain of the ניזק would go down to רביע.
תובנה חשובה של רב שך על נושא שעולה בבבא קמא י''ח וי''ט. ואני רוצה להוסיף הערה משלי. רב אשי שואל "האם בעיטה בצרורות ועל ידי זה גורם נזק היא שינוי? הגמרא עונה על כך בהצעה שרבא שואל, האם העדאה חלה על בעיטה בצרורות? רב שך מתמקד בהבנת הרמב''ם שאומר שאם חיה בעטה בצרורות ועל ידי זה גרמה לנזק, (לא סתם דפקה צרורות בדרך הרגילה של הליכה) ברשות הרבים אין חיוב, אבל אם הניזק תופס את רביע הנזק אין מוציאים ממנו .אם ברשות הניזק אז רבע הנזק חייב, ואם הניזק תופס חצי נזק אין מוציאים ממנו. השאלה היא "למה?" במחצית הראשונה הרמב''ם אומר שאנחנו לא יודעים אם בעיטה היא שינוי מהנורמה. ואז מייד במשפט הבא הוא אומר שאנחנו יודעים שהוא שינוי. רב שך מסביר זאת. השאלה שהוא אומר אם בעיטה היא שינוי היא הופכת לקרן השור ונופלת מקטגוריית הנזקים שנגרמו ברגל בעל החיים. אז ברשות הרבים אם זה לא שינוי הבעלים אינם מחויבים בשום דבר. אם זה שינוי ובכך קרן התם שהוא חצי נזק, אבל כאן רבע הנזק . ברשות הניזק אם זה לא שינוי חצי הנזקים יידרשו לשלם עבורם, אבל אם הוא שינוי אז רבע. וסוג כזה של שינוי יכול להמשיך גם על קרן השור. עד כאן רב שך. ברצוני לומר שהקטע על רשות הניזק ברור מהגמרא. אם איננו יודעים אם צרורות על ידי בעיטה היא שינוי או לא, אז הדברים ברורים. אם לא, אז זה חצי נזק. אם כן אז רבע, בדיוק כמו שכותב הרמב''ם. השאלה היא הרשות הרבים. אם זה שינוי ולכן קרן, זה צריך להיות שהצד של הספק ידרוש חצי נזק, לא כהרמב''ם שם. אם זה לא שינוי, אז ברור שאין חיוב כלל מכיוון שהוא רגל ברשות הרבים. תירוץ: בבא מציעא עמוד ק'. ראיתי על סמך הגמרא שם שלרמב''ם יש דעה בעניין סומכוס וחכמים שהיא מורכבת יותר ממה שהיא ידוע באופן כללי. הרעיון הוא שזה רשות הרבים שאנחנו מחזיקים כסומכוס. אין חזקת ממון. זה כמו הרשב''ם שם בדף ההוא. אז זה עוזר לנו כאן בבא קמא. מכיוון שהנושא הוא נזק ברשות הרבים, אין חזקת ממון ובמקרה זה, אנו מחזיקים כסומכוס. ממון המוטל בספק חולקים. אז כאן ברשות הרבים על רקע הנזקים מגיע לניזק רק רבע.
עם זאת ברור לי שרב שך עונה על השאלה על נזקי בעיטה בצרורות ברשות הרבים אחרת. נזק על ידי צרורות הוא שינוי על גם בשן ואפילו בקרן התם. כך שהבעיטה של צרורות היא קרן התם ברשות הרבים והייתה יורדת לרביע נזק כמו שיניו בצרורות בתחום הניזק הייתה יורדת לרביע
Baltimore, Detroit, Newark. You have got to wonder which side was right North or South.
The answer I think lies in the Federalist papers. That is that the Union is necessary but would have happened anyway without war. Going to war over succession, seems like a husband murdering his wife who wants to leave him. It seems unjustified. And that is even if it is better for the family to stick together. The South wanted to leave the Union. Was that just cause for murdering the South? [I forget the exact numbers but counting both sides it reaches close to a million. That murdering the South also seems like a violation of human rights. After all does not murder take away most rights of the victim (except burial)?
29.5.20
Even if you go with the idea that Gra contained the essence of Torah, that does not mean there is nothing to learn from anyone else.
The idea is to collect all the good points of truth, but also to throw out the evil. And this process needs to take place in every area of value.
The idea was expressed by Steven Dutch: for every science, there are many pseudo sciences around it.
So for every area of value you are dealing with, there is a process of combining the good points that are scattered. There is also a different process of getting rid of the evil.
[I have been thinking of invoking Hegel for support of this idea of mine. That is to refer to this as sublimation. But my my is really a bit more plain--just sifting like you do with wheat grains. Take the good and get rid of the garbage. Hegel is more subtle in that he thinks this process itself brings to the absolute truth--Absolute Spirit [God.]
[The major great and important about the Gra--the major important points are three: the signature on the letter of excommunication, learning Torah, and trust in God.]
The idea was expressed by Steven Dutch: for every science, there are many pseudo sciences around it.
So for every area of value you are dealing with, there is a process of combining the good points that are scattered. There is also a different process of getting rid of the evil.
[I have been thinking of invoking Hegel for support of this idea of mine. That is to refer to this as sublimation. But my my is really a bit more plain--just sifting like you do with wheat grains. Take the good and get rid of the garbage. Hegel is more subtle in that he thinks this process itself brings to the absolute truth--Absolute Spirit [God.]
[The major great and important about the Gra--the major important points are three: the signature on the letter of excommunication, learning Torah, and trust in God.]
27.5.20
There is a network of yeshivas which go strictly by the Gra. I knew the head of the first of this type, Rav Eliyahu Silverman and his father who started the whole thing. This is certainly the best of the best. But Ponovitch, Brisk, and the Mir in NY are certainly also great. The only thing that I am saying is that they would be better of they were going by the Gra in all details, not just some.]
It has been known for a long time that the religious world is sick. It is hard to know why. The fault I believe is not in the holy Torah, but rather just the opposite. The trouble is the Torah of the Dark Side. This was the very reason the Gra put his signature of the famous letter of excommunication. The fact that this was ignored I believe is what has caused all the troubles.
My evaluation here is not based such on simple confidence in the Gra, [faith in the wise] as much as experience. It is no secret that the religious world is off its rocker. [I admit though that it would have been better if I had listened to the Gra in the first place simply based on faith.]
So the idea here is that what is wrong with the religious world is that they have this facade of keeping Torah, but in fact keep anti-Torah--the Torah of the Sitra Achra.
So the best idea at this point would be to reconsider paying heed to the Gra in this area. If that could set things right I am not sure. That might not be enough. But at least it would be a start.
I mean to treat the letter of excommunication as if it had and still has legal validity. [Which it did and still does.] Also may I add by the law of the Torah, the rule about a "Herem" (excommunication) is more strict than "nidui" which is just rebuke. The law of Herem is a great deal more severe.
[But if we would go by strict letter of the law, Rav Nahman would be OK and not in the category of the Herem. See the exact wording and you will see what I mean.]
[side note: There is a network of yeshivas which go strictly by the Gra. I knew the head of the first of this type, Rav Eliyahu Silverman and his father who started the whole thing. This approach is the ideal of what the Lithuanian yeshiva is supposed to be. Also, Ponovitch, Brisk, and the Mir in NY are certainly also great. The only thing that I am saying is that they would be better of they were going by the Gra in all details, not just some. Of all of them I would have to say that Ponovitch is the best.]
I would like to bring an insight of Rav Shach of Ponovitch which is a nice example of his crystal clear type of thought.
It concerns a law in the Rambam laws of damages caused by one's property. 1/2 pebbles knocked by an animal that causes damage is usually 1/2 damages. But what if the animal kicked [not just knocked it its normal way of walking)? In public domain no obligations, but if the other part grabs 1/4 he keeps it for this is a doubt. If in private domain then 1/4 is obligated and if the other party grabs 1/2 he can keep it.
The question is, "Why?" Not only does this not seems to follow from the Gemara but also in the first half the Rambam is saying we do not know if kicking is a "Shinui" change from the norm. Then right away in the next sentence he says we do know.
Rav Shach explains this perfectly clearly. The question he says if kicking is a shinui and thus becomes "keren" horn and fall out of the category of damages caused by the foot of the animal [hof].
So in the public domain if it is not a change the owner is not obligated in anything. If it is a change and thus "Keren" HaTam which is half damages but here because of the doubt he gets only 1/4.
In the private domain if it is not a change the 1/2 damages would be required to pay for, but if a change then 1/4. And this kind of change can go on Keren [horn] also.
My evaluation here is not based such on simple confidence in the Gra, [faith in the wise] as much as experience. It is no secret that the religious world is off its rocker. [I admit though that it would have been better if I had listened to the Gra in the first place simply based on faith.]
So the idea here is that what is wrong with the religious world is that they have this facade of keeping Torah, but in fact keep anti-Torah--the Torah of the Sitra Achra.
So the best idea at this point would be to reconsider paying heed to the Gra in this area. If that could set things right I am not sure. That might not be enough. But at least it would be a start.
I mean to treat the letter of excommunication as if it had and still has legal validity. [Which it did and still does.] Also may I add by the law of the Torah, the rule about a "Herem" (excommunication) is more strict than "nidui" which is just rebuke. The law of Herem is a great deal more severe.
[But if we would go by strict letter of the law, Rav Nahman would be OK and not in the category of the Herem. See the exact wording and you will see what I mean.]
[side note: There is a network of yeshivas which go strictly by the Gra. I knew the head of the first of this type, Rav Eliyahu Silverman and his father who started the whole thing. This approach is the ideal of what the Lithuanian yeshiva is supposed to be. Also, Ponovitch, Brisk, and the Mir in NY are certainly also great. The only thing that I am saying is that they would be better of they were going by the Gra in all details, not just some. Of all of them I would have to say that Ponovitch is the best.]
I would like to bring an insight of Rav Shach of Ponovitch which is a nice example of his crystal clear type of thought.
It concerns a law in the Rambam laws of damages caused by one's property. 1/2 pebbles knocked by an animal that causes damage is usually 1/2 damages. But what if the animal kicked [not just knocked it its normal way of walking)? In public domain no obligations, but if the other part grabs 1/4 he keeps it for this is a doubt. If in private domain then 1/4 is obligated and if the other party grabs 1/2 he can keep it.
The question is, "Why?" Not only does this not seems to follow from the Gemara but also in the first half the Rambam is saying we do not know if kicking is a "Shinui" change from the norm. Then right away in the next sentence he says we do know.
Rav Shach explains this perfectly clearly. The question he says if kicking is a shinui and thus becomes "keren" horn and fall out of the category of damages caused by the foot of the animal [hof].
So in the public domain if it is not a change the owner is not obligated in anything. If it is a change and thus "Keren" HaTam which is half damages but here because of the doubt he gets only 1/4.
In the private domain if it is not a change the 1/2 damages would be required to pay for, but if a change then 1/4. And this kind of change can go on Keren [horn] also.
Can one defend the path of Torah based on Reason? My approach to is that I became aware of some of the questions. But at the same time I also was looking at Spinoza, and discovered Dr Kelley Ross.[Simply because he has a nice analysis of Spinoza.] But then I began to take note of Kelley Ross's other writings. Kelley Ross is more or less based on Kant, Fries and Leonard Nelson.
The idea there is that there is a kind of knowledge that is not through sense perception nor through pure reason. Which would be faith.
However this is not the only possible approach to Kant.
This approach [Leonard Nelson] is not anywhere near academia nor even near any kind of Neo Kantian approach.
Neo Kantian approaches were mainly three: Heidelberg, Marburg, and Gottingen.
But all Neo Kant and Neo Hegel approaches were more or less dismissed in the West by Frege, and the Analytic school.
An upside down Hegelian-ism however continued in the USSR. The official philosopher of the USSR Ernst Kolman was very much into Hegel. He claimed science was doomed in the West, and only true science was happening in the USSR. That seems funny to me since my own dad was working on numerous inventions for the USA, and the USSR got their hands on inventions from the West only by theft. [The USSR never came up with a single invention. Everything was copied from the West.] In fact, KGB agents had a running name for Silicon Valley: "the laboratories of the KGB".
Kolman slandered a very great mathematician Luzin and was responsible for the Luzin Affair. Kolman ironically fell from favor, and placed in the prison of the KGB for three years, and eventually asked for asylum in Sweden. "Payback is a bitch".
So to me twentieth century philosophy looks pretty weak. As Robert Hanna says "Analytic Philosophy: from Frege into the Trash Bin". The problem with twentieth century philosophy is the obsession with language and the delusion that language tells us anything about reality.
But Hegel also seems a bit awkward.
So by default I would say that Kant is the winner. The only question is how to deal with Kant which of the schools was right? or is right?
[No one else seems to be anywhere near the finish line. However I admit that perhaps new reworking of Hegel might be. It is hard to know. Going back to the Middle Ages also seems to ignore some of the major problems with Mediaeval philosophy. Even Thomas Reid who noted the problems in Berkeley and Hume did not deny that they had good critiques on Aristotle. ]
[I should add that there is a difference between trying to replace the tzars with communism which to a large degree I would say was a great improvement. But trying what to replace the Constitution of the USA with socialism is the road to hell.]
The idea there is that there is a kind of knowledge that is not through sense perception nor through pure reason. Which would be faith.
However this is not the only possible approach to Kant.
This approach [Leonard Nelson] is not anywhere near academia nor even near any kind of Neo Kantian approach.
Neo Kantian approaches were mainly three: Heidelberg, Marburg, and Gottingen.
But all Neo Kant and Neo Hegel approaches were more or less dismissed in the West by Frege, and the Analytic school.
An upside down Hegelian-ism however continued in the USSR. The official philosopher of the USSR Ernst Kolman was very much into Hegel. He claimed science was doomed in the West, and only true science was happening in the USSR. That seems funny to me since my own dad was working on numerous inventions for the USA, and the USSR got their hands on inventions from the West only by theft. [The USSR never came up with a single invention. Everything was copied from the West.] In fact, KGB agents had a running name for Silicon Valley: "the laboratories of the KGB".
Kolman slandered a very great mathematician Luzin and was responsible for the Luzin Affair. Kolman ironically fell from favor, and placed in the prison of the KGB for three years, and eventually asked for asylum in Sweden. "Payback is a bitch".
So to me twentieth century philosophy looks pretty weak. As Robert Hanna says "Analytic Philosophy: from Frege into the Trash Bin". The problem with twentieth century philosophy is the obsession with language and the delusion that language tells us anything about reality.
But Hegel also seems a bit awkward.
So by default I would say that Kant is the winner. The only question is how to deal with Kant which of the schools was right? or is right?
[No one else seems to be anywhere near the finish line. However I admit that perhaps new reworking of Hegel might be. It is hard to know. Going back to the Middle Ages also seems to ignore some of the major problems with Mediaeval philosophy. Even Thomas Reid who noted the problems in Berkeley and Hume did not deny that they had good critiques on Aristotle. ]
[I should add that there is a difference between trying to replace the tzars with communism which to a large degree I would say was a great improvement. But trying what to replace the Constitution of the USA with socialism is the road to hell.]
26.5.20
To the degree that people pay heed to the important points of the Gra, that is the degree they succeed in Torah.
One of the major aspects that is important about the Gra is in an ironic way expressed most plainly in the 13 stories of Rav Nahman. There in the 12th story you have this idea that every saint "tzadik' contains the essence of some Divine trait. And that bringing these traits together would result in a great help for all mankind.
And the trait the Gra represents is that of pure Torah. And the proof is in the pudding. Wherever you have a yeshiva based on the Gra, [i.e. straight Litvak yeshivas like Mir or Ponovitch or Brisk] there you have people following the straight unadulterated path of Torah.
But a major obstacle in getting to any tzadik of the realm of holiness is the Sitra Achra, the Dark Side. And in Torah there is a general principle זה לעומת זה עשה האלהים [God made evil parallel to good].
So even more important than coming to the realm of holiness that one can find in a Litvak yeshiva, it is more important to avoid the Dark Side that is elsewhere.
How can you tell? One basic way is "faith in the wise". Even if one does not understand what the Gra says or why, still by listening and heeding his advice, one is saved from the Dark Side.
[I actually did try to follow the Gra in every detail for some time, but I fell from that. However, even if I can not succeed, why should I not want others to succeed? Learning Torah and trust in God are certainly the major points of the Gra, but so is his signature of the letter of excommunication. To the degree that people pay heed to these important points of the Gra, that is the degree they succeed in Torah.]
Even in Lithuanian yeshivot however there are pathological tendencies. They are not solely going by the Gra. But that is the point. To the degree they do not go by the Gra, that is the degree there are pathologies.
And the trait the Gra represents is that of pure Torah. And the proof is in the pudding. Wherever you have a yeshiva based on the Gra, [i.e. straight Litvak yeshivas like Mir or Ponovitch or Brisk] there you have people following the straight unadulterated path of Torah.
But a major obstacle in getting to any tzadik of the realm of holiness is the Sitra Achra, the Dark Side. And in Torah there is a general principle זה לעומת זה עשה האלהים [God made evil parallel to good].
So even more important than coming to the realm of holiness that one can find in a Litvak yeshiva, it is more important to avoid the Dark Side that is elsewhere.
How can you tell? One basic way is "faith in the wise". Even if one does not understand what the Gra says or why, still by listening and heeding his advice, one is saved from the Dark Side.
[I actually did try to follow the Gra in every detail for some time, but I fell from that. However, even if I can not succeed, why should I not want others to succeed? Learning Torah and trust in God are certainly the major points of the Gra, but so is his signature of the letter of excommunication. To the degree that people pay heed to these important points of the Gra, that is the degree they succeed in Torah.]
Even in Lithuanian yeshivot however there are pathological tendencies. They are not solely going by the Gra. But that is the point. To the degree they do not go by the Gra, that is the degree there are pathologies.
25.5.20
The straight pure essence of Torah that becomes revealed through the Gra
To follow the path of the Gra is the only way to get in contact with the essential essence of Torah.
I have no idea why this but I have seen this. It seems to be like playing the violin or repairing shoes. Learning Torah needs a teacher. So it is not just a matter of learning the Hidushei HaRambam of Rav Haim of Brisk or the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. It does seem to require the atmosphere of Litvak yeshiva. But what happens when you are not exactly accepted in such a group? After all, Litvak yeshivas are highly selective.
I have no idea about what to do in such a situation, but I simply mean to raise the issue which comes up more often than is known. [And I agree they are right to be selective. But that does not help to know what to do for those that are outside. What I imagine is even if one does no merit to learn, at least to hold onto truth of the straight pure essence of Torah that becomes revealed through the Gra.]
[The best idea that I can see is to try to get through the Avi Ezri and Hidushei HaRambam at least ("derek girsa") saying the words and going on.]
I have no idea why this but I have seen this. It seems to be like playing the violin or repairing shoes. Learning Torah needs a teacher. So it is not just a matter of learning the Hidushei HaRambam of Rav Haim of Brisk or the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. It does seem to require the atmosphere of Litvak yeshiva. But what happens when you are not exactly accepted in such a group? After all, Litvak yeshivas are highly selective.
I have no idea about what to do in such a situation, but I simply mean to raise the issue which comes up more often than is known. [And I agree they are right to be selective. But that does not help to know what to do for those that are outside. What I imagine is even if one does no merit to learn, at least to hold onto truth of the straight pure essence of Torah that becomes revealed through the Gra.]
[The best idea that I can see is to try to get through the Avi Ezri and Hidushei HaRambam at least ("derek girsa") saying the words and going on.]
24.5.20
atomic bomb on Hiroshima
My impression of the issue of using the atomic bomb on Hiroshima is that (1) the Supreme War Council of Japan was not unanimous in bringing a peace proposal to the Emperor. [It could not bring such a proposal unless it was unanimous].
[The military had a few aces up their sleeves: new technology and advanced planes and biological weapon facilities. So four of the ministers wanted to continue the war. Two wanted peace. Tojo, the prime minister wanted peace, I seem to recall.] (The Supreme Council had six people. The prime minister, foreign minister, chief of staff of the army and minister of the army, chief of staff for the navy and minister of the navy.]
(2) The idea of giving a demonstration I always thought was ridiculous because in fact the USA gave a demonstration, and that certainly was not enough to bring a surrender.
(3) The war consul did not convene after Hiroshima. Tojo [foreign minister] sent a special message to get in contact immediately with Molotov to press the idea of being a go between between Japan and the USA. That is --the previous proposal of keeping the Emperor in place and in charge of everything. But this proposal would never have been accepted since the emperor was in fact in charge of the military. That was the very thing the USA blamed the war on.
(4) What caused the War Council to convene? Not Hiroshima. Not Nagasaki. It was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. [They convened immediately after the news of the Soviet invasion came in.] The news of Nagasaki came only during the time the consul was meeting.
So what caused the consul to send a surrender proposal to the Emperor? Certainly not Hiroshima. Maybe a combination of Nagasaki with Hiroshima, plus the Soviet invasion, plus the obvious fact at that point that the Soviets were not going to be bringing any peace proposals to the Americans. Just the opposite. The Soviets at that point wanted their own piece of the pie. So that is what caused Japan to surrender--not even the fact of the Soviet invasion, but the fact that Molotov was not going to be a go between. Soviet intentions became crystal clear after a millions troops crossed Japaneses borders.
[I might add here that but continuing the war with Japan would certainly have meant the USA army being transferred to the Far East. If we think in terms of Iwo Jima or Okinawa, every square mile of Japanese territory claimed 1,000 American lives. But Iwo Jima is a tiny coral island. Can you even begin to guess the casualties of an invasion Japanese soil? [Just count up the square miles and multiply by 1,000. That is American lives. Japanese lives that would have been lost you have to multiply by a factor of many times more. And they were certainly getting a warm welcome ready for the Americans with massive military build ups in the area (Kyushu) they expected the American would come into.]
[Of course none of the above have anything to do with why people condemn the USA for fighting back. The reason people mention ''Hiroshima'' is to see if you are a good person. If you say it was OK, then you are evil. The same issue with slavery. It is not to decide the issue. The issue is to decide if your a decent person. If you defend it by lets say self determination then you are still thought to be evil. After all, no nation except England and the USA outlawed slavery. It was a part of the legal arrangements of every nation. It is all about "virtue signaling".
They always approach Hiroshima as if it was just out of the blue that Truman decided to use the bomb.
[The military had a few aces up their sleeves: new technology and advanced planes and biological weapon facilities. So four of the ministers wanted to continue the war. Two wanted peace. Tojo, the prime minister wanted peace, I seem to recall.] (The Supreme Council had six people. The prime minister, foreign minister, chief of staff of the army and minister of the army, chief of staff for the navy and minister of the navy.]
(2) The idea of giving a demonstration I always thought was ridiculous because in fact the USA gave a demonstration, and that certainly was not enough to bring a surrender.
(3) The war consul did not convene after Hiroshima. Tojo [foreign minister] sent a special message to get in contact immediately with Molotov to press the idea of being a go between between Japan and the USA. That is --the previous proposal of keeping the Emperor in place and in charge of everything. But this proposal would never have been accepted since the emperor was in fact in charge of the military. That was the very thing the USA blamed the war on.
(4) What caused the War Council to convene? Not Hiroshima. Not Nagasaki. It was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. [They convened immediately after the news of the Soviet invasion came in.] The news of Nagasaki came only during the time the consul was meeting.
So what caused the consul to send a surrender proposal to the Emperor? Certainly not Hiroshima. Maybe a combination of Nagasaki with Hiroshima, plus the Soviet invasion, plus the obvious fact at that point that the Soviets were not going to be bringing any peace proposals to the Americans. Just the opposite. The Soviets at that point wanted their own piece of the pie. So that is what caused Japan to surrender--not even the fact of the Soviet invasion, but the fact that Molotov was not going to be a go between. Soviet intentions became crystal clear after a millions troops crossed Japaneses borders.
[I might add here that but continuing the war with Japan would certainly have meant the USA army being transferred to the Far East. If we think in terms of Iwo Jima or Okinawa, every square mile of Japanese territory claimed 1,000 American lives. But Iwo Jima is a tiny coral island. Can you even begin to guess the casualties of an invasion Japanese soil? [Just count up the square miles and multiply by 1,000. That is American lives. Japanese lives that would have been lost you have to multiply by a factor of many times more. And they were certainly getting a warm welcome ready for the Americans with massive military build ups in the area (Kyushu) they expected the American would come into.]
[Of course none of the above have anything to do with why people condemn the USA for fighting back. The reason people mention ''Hiroshima'' is to see if you are a good person. If you say it was OK, then you are evil. The same issue with slavery. It is not to decide the issue. The issue is to decide if your a decent person. If you defend it by lets say self determination then you are still thought to be evil. After all, no nation except England and the USA outlawed slavery. It was a part of the legal arrangements of every nation. It is all about "virtue signaling".
They always approach Hiroshima as if it was just out of the blue that Truman decided to use the bomb.
There really is no reason to think that "reason" is infallible.
Let's say we are learning the Critique of Pure Reason or Hegel which deal with what pure reason can tell us. [That is where Kant says that pure reason can tell us more than when there are self contradictions [as per Hume]. He shows reason can show us synthetic a priori which is the same things as universals.]
But there is no claim that reason is infallible.
So how does reason recognize things. Not by implanted knowledge, nor by recollection but by probability. [The implanted knowledge was refuted by Husserl].
The kind of probability here was discovered by Thomas Bayes.
Dr Michael Huemer shows this in his web site
Let's say we are learning the Critique of Pure Reason or Hegel which deal with what pure reason can tell us. [That is where Kant says that pure reason can tell us more than when there are self contradictions [as per Hume]. He shows reason can show us synthetic a priori which is the same things as universals.]
But there is no claim that reason is infallible.
So how does reason recognize things. Not by implanted knowledge, nor by recollection but by probability. [The implanted knowledge was refuted by Husserl].
The kind of probability here was discovered by Thomas Bayes.
Dr Michael Huemer shows this in his web site
In Yore Deah the Rema brings that learning Physics and metaphysics is a part of learning Torah,. Even though the is a famous note from the Gra on this Rema in Yore Deah, I was one day in the Yeshiva of the Gra in the old city of Jerusalem and saw an extended commentary on the notes of the Gra. On that note it was brought that it was inserted and not at all from the Gra. [Before the notes went to the printer someone inserted this comment that supposedly shows that the Gra disagreed with the Rema on that point.]
One surprising things the Gra wrote is "The root of the souls of gentiles is from heaven and the root of souls of Israel is from the earth." From what I recall this is from his commentary on Shir Hashirim chapter two [right at the start of the chapter]. So the idea of superiority because of birth seems to be in accurate.
I saw a similar idea in Rav Luria on Genesis in a verse on the three sons on Noah.I.e., that their root was from the three names "I will be" אלף הי יוד הי. אלף הא יוד הי. אלף הה יוד הה.
I saw a similar idea in Rav Luria on Genesis in a verse on the three sons on Noah.I.e., that their root was from the three names "I will be" אלף הי יוד הי. אלף הא יוד הי. אלף הה יוד הה.
Even though I learned a lot of very great lessons from the teachings of Rav Nahman of Breslov still I have to admit that the only way to get to the pure essence of Torah is through the Gra [Rav Eliyahu the Gaon of Vilna]. And you can see this yourself any time you talk to anyone in Breslov. When anyone in Breslov wants to show that so and so is a great Torah scholar, they never say "he is so great and you know this because he learned in a Breslov yeshiva". Rather they say "he is a great Torah scholar, and you know this to be so because he learned in the Mir." [Or they say it in present tense as in reference to people that are at present in the Mir either in the Mir in NY or the Mir in Israel.]
22.5.20
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)