There is a paper by Alsaleh [ER=EPR] that suggests space time in connected by little worm holes. [https://inspirehep.net/literature/1496409] This might lead to a way of combining these little worm holes to create a large one by which space time travel might be possible. 

The paper is coauthored, but I think Alsaleh is the main author because he often has a characteristic way of spelling things which makes it clear to me that he was the one doing the writing.] 

 x81 F minor   x81 in midi  x81 nwc

 What is idolatry? Bowing, burning, bringing close, slaughter and service according to its way.[note 1] And it helps to have a clear idea of what idolatry is so that one is not tempted to use it as a general catch all phrase for whatever one disapproves of.

[So when I say that the religious world is doing idolatry, I am not saying going to Uman to pray in the merit of Rav Nahman is any kind of problem. Rather the issue is attitude. And even if one can not be legally guilty, it is helpful to have an idea of what the actual essence of the issue is. As the Gra said to judge any action one needs both to know the law and also the situation.

[note 1] These are the four services done in the Temple. If done for an idol, the one doing them is guilty of idolatry. Bowing is understood. burning is like in the Temple when one brings  a burnt offering. If that same act is done for an idol, it is idolatry. The rest are understood. The last one means this: sometimes an idol has a certain kind of service that is unique for that idol. So that is also idolatry if one does it. Now what is an idol? Anything. It does not need to be an object. But any object will do. So in the religious world when worship is done towards dead people, that constitutes idolatry.] 

 The idea of the "infinite light" does not get into philosophy much or even religion. The reason is that it is not grasped, but given. And even when it is given, it is only one area of value. This you can see in the diagram of Kelley Ross about the modes of necessity on the z axis and the mode of the transcendent in  the x direction. [https://www.friesian.com/system.htm]

So even if one merits to have some flow of the infinite light, that does not mean he or she has any connection with the other  areas of value. They might not have any particular insight in anything or even in spiritual values.

And the problem with each area of value is there is an equal and opposite area of negative value that mimics the authentic area of value. [The Dark Side. The Sitra Achra.] (That is the reason the religious world is so messed up.)

[This is based on Kant's dinge an sich--the areas where reason does not enter. And Leonard Nelson's particular approach which was adopted from Fries with some modifications.]

[Though the Kelley Ross, Leonard Nelson  approach makes the most sense to me I tend to see a lot of good points in Hegel also.]

[This approach makes sense to me because Hegel sees everything as leading to God as the absolute idea through reason. That would be so if the only emanation of God was logos. But with the Kelley Ross, there is a whole area of transcendental which  can not be grasped by reason. ]

The pervasive idolatry that one finds in the religious world is upsetting.

 I tend to see Reform and Conservative as more in accord with Torah because these groups lack the idolatry aspect that one usually gets in the religious world . But I can not account for why this is. It would seem that the more people would be interested in keeping Torah, the farther away from idolatry they would get. But in practice, the effect seems to be just the opposite.

And to stay away idolatry is not just a minor issue in Torah. It is the major point.

You can see this in for example the case of a עיר הנידחת a city that has been seduced to serve idolatry that is burnt. That is the whole city. And even its ashes are forbidden to be be used for any purpose. And in fact because of this, I tend to stay away from the religious. The pervasive idolatry that one finds in the religious world is upsetting. 

[You would think that since idolatry is the one and most issue in Torah that it would have the most weight.  Yet the religious seem to ignore the issue. So the best idea is to avoid the religious world unless this issue gets fixed.]

[I should add that this problem seems to be a lot less in the Litvak world which goes by the Gra. Still no one in the religious world seems innocent in this regard. Clearly the Gra himself saw this problem and for that reason signed the letter of excommunication. But the Gra in this very important issue is ignored,]

[There is also an odd fact that everyone sees this but no one mentions it--like the king's clothes. And I think that one ought to object. After all even if one's objection is not heeded, still there is an obligation to show that the religious does not represent the Torah at all, since the idolatry makes the whole thing forbidden.]  

[It is no accident that the vast majority of Jews do not want any connection with the religious because the fact that the religious put on this show and dance about how they supposedly keep Torah, but in fact worship dead people.]

Just to give an idea of how serious the issue of idolatry is let me mention that not just עיר הנידחת the city that has most of its peopled doing idolatry needs to be burnt to a crisp but even the ashes are forbidden to be used. Or at least that seems clear from the Tosephta and Gemara.   

 x82   x82 in midi format  x82 in nwc format

There is a major point that I gained from the advice of Rav Nahman that I wanted to share. One is the path of learning. Even though the idea of learning fast is common place in the great Litvak yeshivas based on the Gra, still Rav Nahman puts it in a way that makes it possible for even small mediocre people like me to get to  levels of learning. Say the words and go on even without understanding. The deeper reasons he said this might be many. However I found this to be a great benefit, whether in Torah, or also later in Physics.  For if I had gotten stuck on  every single point in learning before I could go on, I never would have gotten anywhere. However, the only way to get to authentic Torah learning is through the Gra and the great Litvak yeshivas. But if one is in a authentic Litvak yeshiva then the advice of Rav Nahman is an amazing help.

[And in Litvak yeshivas there is an emphasis on review and learning in depth. What seems the best to have some kind of combination. For example, half learning in depth and the other half just saying the words and going on.]

You can see that the Torah takes a dim view of worship of any being besides God alone.]

Laws of Idolatry. When the Torah says "this and that" there is an argument between R Yoshiyahu and R Yonathan whether it means this or that or both, or if it means it has to be both. This comes up in Bava Metzia chapter 11.

This might explain the the fact that the Rambam says a city that has been seduced to serve idolatry "ir hanadachat" is from 100 to the majority of a tribe but also that the number of people that have been seduced can not be less than 100. However anywhere from 200 and up, it is enough to have the majority of the city. So it looks like the Rambam is understanding you need two conditions in order to be a ir hanidachat. It has to be a city of no less than hundred and that you need no less that 100.

This way of looking at that Gemara does require some explanation. The way Tosphot understands it along with most other rishonim is the city has to be no less than 100 but the actual number of seduced people is just the majority; i.e. 51 in a city of 100. Why in a city of 100 you need the whole city is hard to understand unless the Rambam is understanding that you need the city itself and the number of those seduced to be two condition that you need both like the opinion when the Torah says this and that it means both together.

[You can see why I stay away from the religious world as far as possible since I think they all are deeply into idolatry except for the people that follow the Gra. You can see that the Torah takes a dim view of worship of any being besides God alone.] 

the religious teachers are the enemies of Torah.

 Even though Rav Nahman emphasizes the importance of not speaking lashon hara [slander], he still peppers the Le.M with his idea that the religious teachers are the enemies of Torah. The subject of  "Torah Scholars who are demons" comes up in the LeM vol. I chapter 12 and 28.  Rav Israel Odesser the founder of the Na Nach group even makes the same point מפורסמים של שקר ("the famous people that are frauds"). That is the language Rav Nahman uses in LeM volume II chapter 1. And Rav Israel Odesser says אם מפורסם הוא שקר ("If one is famous, then you know he is a fraud"). 

So to where can one go to learn Torah. It is not automatic that even the name of "Breslov" involves actually following the advice and ideas of Rav Nahman. In fact, usually it does not. So to my mind it seems clear that Litvak yeshivas [based on the path of the Gra] are the only places where one can go to learn authentic Torah. And within that context, it is good to learn Rav Nahman's advice and follow it.

 I can see that Hegel wants to use the idea that opposites turn into each other to get to his idea of sublimation. The opposites subsumed in some higher idea of being until everything reaches the Absolute Idea. But to me it seems he is lacked the idea of "birur" sifting. That is separating what is good from what is evil.  [Maybe you might say that birur is implicit in what he means, but to me it does not seem that way. And the lack I think of this idea  means that lots of dumb ideas could be hung on Hegel and there does not seem to be any kind of "birur process".

On the other hand, he is a post Kant person that seems to me to take account of Kant, but avoids much of the mind is needed for matter that seems a bit too much embedded in "Idealism". He might be going with mind but his mind is "Logos", not the human minds of Kant. Or even animal minds. There was plenty of matter before there were minds.

There is an idea you see a few times in Tehilim [psalms] of searching out the works of God. [E.g psalm105.] This corresponds to what some rishonim wrote about the importance of learning Physics and Metaphysics.  This was an issue at the Mir. It was not thought to be proper to be at the Mir and also to go to university. In one way the Mir was right. Most of what is taught in universities is pseudo science. But not everything. If they would stick with the natural sciences that would be great. Allan Bloom wrote in the Closing of the American Mind the problems with the departments outside of STEM.

[Even though when Ibn Pakuda and other rishonim emphasized Metaphysics their intension was concerning Aristotle still I think you have to count Kant, Hegel, and Leonard Nelson [i.e. that particular post Kant approach.] Physics I think means String Theory, but that would include some of the background behind it like Algebra and Topology.]

The religious world has a problem with cults. That is that sometimes straight fraud, and other times the Dark Side has powers that can fool people. This is the reason the Gra signed the famous letter of excommunication,--to warn people not to be fooled. But after him, Rav Shach also stated the same warning. And also Rav Israel Oddeser of the Na  Nach group. But for some reason their warning went largely unheeded. [Rav Nahman I should mention not only was not included in the excommunication but also stated the same warning. עיין השמטות של חיי מוהר''ן של רב שמואל הורביץ See left out portions of the  Life of Rav Nahman of Shmuel Horvitz.  Not the left out parts that were eventually published but rather the left out parts that were collected separately. and never included. 

 I have thought that it would be a great idea if people would have the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach and learn it every day. The reason I say this is that there is a depth in Torah that is hard to reach on one's own efforts. Now this kind of depth certainly is there just in the Oral Law [Gemara]. However it can be hard to reach without Rav Shach. [Certainly this kind of depth in the Gemara and Rishonim also can be seen in Rav Haim [Soloveitchik] of Brisk and his other disciples. But Rav Shach brings that kind of learning to it peak.]  

I might add here that if you go into any Litvak yeshiva, they always talk about the importance of the Rishonim and they are right about that on one hand. But on the other hand they are not mentioning that then after the morning learning session they go and hear a class from one of the teachers. And that class always contains  the achronim, e.g. the Ketzot HaHoshen, R. Akiva Eigger, the Pnei Yehoshua, Rav Haim of Brisk, and his disciples. They are not actually thinking that you on your own can just open up the rishonim and understand their depth.

So I see the learning of the achronim just as important as the rishonim. But that already depends on one's level. At first probably the best is to go to the Maharsha and Pnei Yehoshua. Then after doing a few tractates like that, then to go to to Rav Shach's Avi Ezri.

 x79mp3 x79 midi  x79 nwc

Gemara Bava Batra page 56

 There is an argument between the Ri of Gash and the Rambam. [Laws of Testimony 21:6] [ sys The Ri Mi'Gash (Rav Joseph of Gash) was the teacher of the father of the Rambam.] Three brothers testify for three years of "hazaka". The Mishna itself says that is valid if each brother testified for one year and another person testified with him. But if there are other witnesses that come and say how can you say that when you were with us the whole time. To the Ri Migash there is no payment to the owner since brothers can not testify together. The Rambam says there is payment. The question is how to explain the Ri Migash that even the Ramban [Nahmandes asks on]. Rav Shach explains this in Laws of Testimony. But I have to write his answer at a different time because of a certain amount of chaos that is in my life this minute.

OK. [My life is always in chaos, but Thanks to Heaven that I have a few minutes now to write the answer of Rav Shach and my slight question after that.] The answer of Rav Shach is that the Jerusalem Talmud says ומנין שלא יהיו עדים קרובים זה לזה? הגע עצמך אם הוזמו לא מפיהם הם נהרגים ("From where do you know that witnesses can not be relatives? Just think about it. Is it not so that if they would become false witnesses they would not be  killed?") The Yerushalmi is thinking that no testimony can be valid unless there would be a punishment if it turned out to be false.   עדות שאי אתה יכול להזימה. And the Rif brings that Yerushalmi.

I have no question that Rav Shach is correct that this Yerushalmi is the source of the Ri Migash. But the question remains how is it possible that any testimony can be accepted if not for the fact that if it would turn out to be false that there would be the same punishment that the false witnesses wanted to give to an innocent person? You still have the very same question that started the whole process.

The problem with Torah from the Sitra Achra is not just that it is wrong. but that it brings wickedness into the heart of those that study it. ]

Someone asked me about the more mystic teachings of Torah and I thought to share my thoughts with the wider public. I have to say that my impression has been for a long time that the best book of mysticism that I have ever seen is the Tree of Life [Eitz Haim] of Rav Isaac Luria. (The other writings of the Ari I think are better to learn after that.) After that, I think the best is the Nahar Shalom of Shalom Sharabi. [The reason I say this is that even though the Eitz Haim itself is pretty much self explicit, still there are two problems in putting it all together. One is the "Drush HaDaat" which was not included, but implies a modification of that whole system. Plus there is the whole second half of the Eitz Haim which automatically implies a sort of modification on the whole system. The only book I have ever seen that addresses these two problems is the Nahar Shalom of Rav Sharabi. [The two sidurim of the Rashash take the system of the Nahar Shalom into account.]

However I should add that I gained a lot from learning the ideas of Avraham Abulafia, Rav Moshe Haim Luzato (Ramchal), Rav Yakov Abuchatzeira,  the Gra, and Rav Nahman of Breslov.

Outside of these few,  the problem with mysticism is that most of it is from the Dark Side [Sitra Achra]. --The way to avoid that problem would be by taking heed of the signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication that already drew a line between what is OK and what is not. Rav Nahman of Breslov was not under that excommunication in spite of what most people think, and hinted plenty of times to the same thing the Gra was talking about, but also ignored. The Na Nach group however based on Rav Israel Odeser seem to be a bit more aware of this issue. [Rav Oddeser was also plain and open about this issue.] 

[The problem with Torah from the Sitra Achra is not just that it is wrong. but that it brings wickedness into the heart of those that study it. ]

x78 E flat major   x78 midi  x78 nwc

 There are lots of interpretations of Hegel. [See the Cambridge Companion to Hegel.] I am not claiming any great understanding of any of them. Rather I simply see the world in the of Neo Platonic form that has God at the top and creation being "flowed" forth [emanation]. And this fits in with the original way people understood Hegel. [But also has elements of Kant Fries and Leonard Nelson]. But the basic structure is neo platonic.

There is a good reason to notice the great points in each of these different philosophers. The reason is that the best of the philosopher today--the deepest and most thorough also have this same set of differences. Kelly Ross  and Robert Hanna goes with Kant. Huemer with GE Moore. And though he is back in time, McTaggart was with Hegel. 

non intuitive immediate knowledge [faith] i

 what made me interested Fries and non intuitive immediate knowledge [faith] is the site of Dr Kelley Ross [https://www.friesian.com/]. Dr Ross is also going with Leonard Nelson. But I wonder if the gap between Hegel and Fries is so great as to be unbridgeable. I wonder about that because I read some of McTaggart and he answers some of the questions on Hegel in  such away that makes me think maybe the gap is no so great. Besides that there are some aspects of the Fries approach which leave me wondering. After all I see the electron does not care if one thinks of it as a wave or particle. If there are two slits, it decides to be  a wave. If there is one slit, it decides to be a particle.  It does not care about us observers.

Besides that, as Michael Huemer pointed out, it does not make sense to say that implanted knowledge is knowledge. If it is implanted, it makes no sense to say that it should have anything to do with reality.

So all that leaves me wondering if some synthesis is possible. 

What I tend to is the idea that Hegel is right about the metaphysics. The three part structure of reality. And the way to get to understanding is by dialectical process. That takes the place of experiment. Similar to what Kant thought he was doing with the antimonies.  

But when it comes to how we know things it seems that Leonard Nelson was right that you need a starting point. Non intuitive immediate knowledge [faith]. 

[A lot of work was done on Kant after 1781. Then Hegel came along and that also produced a lot of commentary. Then you have the "Analytic" schools  starting in some way from Frege. But the "intuitionists". G.E. Moore and Prichard seem the best. But there is something a bit odd. Each one of these schools seems to have some amazingly great points, but at the same time something slightly hard to swallow. So you can see why all that leaves me wondering. As for the present day it looks to me that the Friesian school is the best based on Fries and Leonard Nelson. But that does not seem to cancel, out the good points of G.E. Moore or Hegel. 

[When I say there is something odd about "philosophers-" nowadays you probably know l what I mean.  As Sandra Lehman once told me, "There is something about philosophy that seem to detract from common sense."  At least the Kant Fries school of thought seems immune to this kind of problem. In fact, Kelley Ross has a whole essay seeing if perhaps Quantum Mechanics can be understood in a Kantian kind of way. That is a lot different from other "philosophers" that criticize physics before understanding it.]

Makot page 5 the Gemara

 In tractate Makot page 5 the Gemara says that the regular laws about witnesses that have been refuted applies even in in cases that require lashes. [So the false witnesses do not get makot unless the sentence was already decided. That is the case was settled to give lashes to the innocent person and after that other witnesses came and to those witnesses "How could have seen that felony in such and such a place when you were with us in another place that whole day?"

This is a question on the Rambam that writes if an innocent person was given lashes because of their false testimony, they get lashes. This is a question because the general law about false witnesses is that they get the punishment they wanted to give only if they tried to give it but not of it was actually preformed.

The Minhat Hinuch, Rav Akiva Eiger, and the Pnei Yehoshua all answer that the Rambam holds they get lashes because of the verse לא תענה ברעך עד שקר thou shalt not testify false witness against thy neighbor. 

But that does not answer the fact that the gemara says to receive any punishment for false testimony one needs the regular laws of false witnesses -that includes "as they planned, not as they did." שאשר זמם ולא כאשר עשה

Rav Shach brings an different answer to try to explain the Rambam from the book "HaMeir LaOlam" that we say אין עונשים מן הדין [We do not give a punishment because of a "all the more so"] only in the case of a death penalty. [The idea of that answer is that normally you would say if witnesses wanted to give a punishment and they turn out to we liars then they get that same punishment then all the more so if they actually succeeded in getting that innocent person to get the punishment. But we do not say that in the case of a death penalty because the is a special traditional teaching] "as they planned, not as they did." שאשר זמם ולא כאשר עשה.

However Rav Shach shows from the Tosefta that this answer does not hold because the Tosefta holds that   [We do not give a punishment because of a "all the more so"] even applies to all other areas like laws about money. However Tospfot [in the very beginning Bava Kama]does hold that there is an argument between our Mishna and the Tosefta about this very issue.

Rav Haim of Brisk has a different answer for the Rambam. He says that lashes is different from the death penalty or a monetary fine. lashes needs to be done in a legal court and if not it is just hitting. So even if the false witnesses did get the penalty to be applied to the innocent person, that still is is in the category of "they planned to do but did not do." Rav Shach however asks on this for they never plan on giving a legal penalty to an innocent person. In any penalty they know they are lying. They simply want either to have the person get the death penalty or lashes of whatever. And if they succeeded then they succeeded. So in all cases it is  a case they would not get that penalty. So in conclusion there does not seem to be any answer for the Rambam.

  

learning secular studies

 Rav Nathan, a  major disciple of Rav Nahman did not hold from learning secular studies at all. And that is clearly what he understood from Rav Nahman. However that might be the aspect the was conveyed to him by Rav Nahman. For the Le.M of Rav Nahman says that there are deep secrets of Torah hidden in the physical world. [Not just the spiritual aspects.] LeM Vol. I, chapters 1, and 56. Vol. II, chapter 96.

The trouble with secular studies is that most are junk. Unless one is learning practical things like automobile repair or natural sciences, the vast majority are just a way for universities to drum up some cash

[In Hovot Levavot [The Musar book called Obligations of the Hearts by Ibn Pakuda] SharHaBehina chapter 3 you see the spiritual aspects in things is not the same as the wisdom in them.]

[It is fairly clear in the rishonim [mediaeval sages] that follow the line of Rav Saadia Gaon that Physics and Metaphysics are aspects of learning Torah. But there are plenty of other rishonim that hold just the opposite. An argument of rishonim "these and those are the words of the Living God". So there can not be any final decision. Both are valid, even if the custom is to follow one or the other.] 

older music files -a piece called mathematics and a few others

 Music piece named "mathematics"    [mathematics nwc file]

Music piece named "Black Hole" mp3 [the music line of the math piece was written in Uman, but then put together in NY. Same with this next piece.]

[Black Hole midi file]

[These are pieces from a few years ago. The next one, x77, is recent.]

x77 A Minor This was written last week. As you can see these and most recent pieces are just small sketches. 

No one in Rome could hold any position without being elected- at least during the time of Cicero.

 Western Civilization is based on a hierarchy of competence. So while all groups have a pecking order, the pecking order of the West is based on competence. You hire a plumber because of what he can do and how well he can do it. [So as Jordan Peterson points out that all groups going back  even to lobsters are based on a hierarchy, still the West is unique that it is based on competence. That is why people like Captain Cochrane [one of the most successful captains that fought against Napoleon] succeeded in English society. So where does this come from? I think this goes back to ancient Rome. Tarquin the Elder went to Rome because in Etruscan society there was no room for his talents. Rome (even way back then) was based on competence. And that is what led to its greatness.["Greatness" does not mean they were sweet. But they did not expand into a world of other peoples minding their own business. (You really think all the other peoples the Romans conquered were peace loving?) All the others were  much the same--bent on power and conquest, except in one detail. The Romans won.]

[Steven Dutch pointed out that even so, even though people want a society based on competence and merit, they do not want it purely based on that. They want a little leeway. And Rome was not purely competence based. It was half patrician and half plebian. So while the leaders of the plebs were probably chosen by merit, the senate could only be by born patricians--even though they also had to be elected by the people [citizens which included patricians and plebs]. No one in Rome could hold any position without being elected- at least during the time of Cicero. However, I should add that one was not elected to the Senate. He was first a Questor, and to that position he needed to be elected by the people, and then when that term was up he automatically became  senator. But to be a questor in the first place meant one needed to be elected. 

This is the age of disappointment.

 This is the age of disappointment. One example which shows this is the case of a Muslim born and raised in Canada and because of the regular kind of search for values that teen ages go through he became radicalized. As part of this process he went to Syria. But just seeing the kind of society that Syria is got him to start asking himself if what he got himself into is really all that better than Canada. But that would not have been enough to change his mind. He needed the mental tools to be able to deal with the cognitive dissonance. So one day a wise old Muslim sat down with him and asked him what is "jihad"? The answer the youth said is the holy "fight". So that wise man said ''No. The word for "fight" is a different word. Rather "jihad" means a different kind of internal struggle. So that youth gained a sense of  balance, and helped to prevent terrorist attacks in Canada.

This is a good example of what many people go through. The experience is universal. Some with Scientology, some with the Adi Da group.

So this got me to thinking that I found something that really was great, but I really could not stick with it: that is the straight Litvak Torah path that I saw at the Mir in NY. I tasted the "real thing."   

But that is quite different from the religious world which is more or less along the same lines as Scientology or Adi Da. All I am saying is I did discover that there is such a thing as authentic holiness in the Torah path of the Gra and Musar.

[However, experience in the religious world is likely to be disappointing since the emphasis in the religious world is money, power and being the top dog and keeping the plebeians like me in a semi slave state to support them. Only in rare places like Ponovitch or the Mir is the actual standard the Torah. The is no connection between Torah and the religious except in show and in verbiage.]

x75 music file

 x75 mp3  x75 nwc

x75 midi file 

skirmish lines between Kant and Hegel

 I feel that the skirmish lines between Kant and Hegel  are like the battles lines between the trenches between the Germans and the French and English troops of WWI. They just seem unmovable after years of battle. And so philosophy got tired of that battle, and just went on to other things. Not that the issues were ever resolved.

But some of the issues seem important. One is the unfortunate rise of scientism;--in that some that think only what science can measure and define can be real. But faith issues also seem to have come up. People think that faith in stuff makes it so. That seems just as unfortunate as the first flaw of scientism.

What seems important about Kant is the definition of the limits of reason, [the very name of his book indicates this.] But also it is important to keep in mind the Middle Ages and the synthesis of faith and reason. Thus reason can inform us in what we ought to believe.

There is a sort of intellect that seeks to find the good in everything and only when that is impossible reject.

 There is a sort of intellect that seeks to find the good in everything and only when that is impossible reject. This is something I more or less picked up from the sages and later after learning the approach of Rav Nahman this was emphasized even more so.

The exact statement of the sages I forgot but it goes more or less along the lines that a wise person seeks to settle the words of the wise.  With Rav Nahman you see this emphasized even more so. Someone aksed him  for a "segula" [a sort of supernatural way] of getting help to merit to be "Masmid" in Torah [i.e. to learn Torah all the time.] Rav Nahman replied that is by no speaking lashon hara about anyone. [Of course besides that Torah lesson 282 is famous about judging every person on the scales of merit.]

But it was pointed out by David Bronson that the way an engineer thinks is to find fault. What can possibly go wrong with this design he asks himself or herself all the time.

To me it see that you need both and that this kind of duality is reflected in almost every part of reality. The electron shows properties of a particle and a wave. 

[The ancient Greeks noticed this in Heraclitus about opposites.]

x74 music file

 x74 B Minor

unveiling of Being

There was can be a period the unveiling of Being that can be sabotaged. This is something you see in a Midrash about King David who said רומה על שמים השם May  God be lifted above Heaven. The sages said that King David saw that the Divine Presence was coming down on Earth but that people would not ready for that brilliant Light and so David asked God to take it above the first firmament, and then above the second, and then the third, and then finally above all the different firmaments-- so that the actions of people would not harm the Divine presence.  You can definitely have periods of some kind of Divine revelations or awakening coming into the world that can come to fulfillment, or it can be jinxed and replaced by the presence of the Sitra Achra. --the Dark Side. I mean to say that in the case of King David, if he had not asked that the Divine Presence should be removed, then the damage would have been such that the destruction would have reached even into the higher worlds, and the Dark Side would have been given power on Earth.

You might see certain periods of unveiling that are successful, and other times when the Dark Side rules the world-- like nowadays.

"He whom the gods want to destroy, they first make insane."

 "He whom the gods want to destroy, they first make insane." [That is from the Ancient Greeks.] If people believe is no that there is no difference between men and women, there is nothing else more plain and obvious to appeal to.

So the USA has gone insane. Thus China is going to be the major superpower soon.

How did they get this way? By a kind dual axis of the individual and the general society.

That is to say: that the Communist Party of China started out totally society based--I mean Marxism. [That is the world is oppressed and oppressors and the solution to to take out the oppressors, (as in "eliminate"). That would result in Utopia.] Then that resulted in disaster, so in 1978 the switch happened to private property and technology and economies as opposed to politics. The slogan was "to seek truth from facts." Not to seek facts from ideology as in the USA. But the Communist Party would still be  in charge. So China found some balance between the individual and society.

There is a sort of insanity which can be hard to distinguish between it and holiness .

There is a sort of insanity which can be hard to distinguish between it and holiness . The difference is that every area of value has an opposite area of value. So holiness which is all essence and no form [God the Creator], can easily decay into an opposite area of value. That is the Dark side.  So to come to holiness is rather a process that is not well defined. One one hand, you might say that keeping Torah plain and simple ought to prevent one from falling into the Dark Side  [Sitra Achra]. But in everyday life, that is clearly not what happens. People that get involved in the Torah often end up as great disappointments. They are hurt and destroyed by those they trusted, and in turn destroy the life of others. Religious devotion most often causes a great deterioration in simple human decency. 

[I think is better to have balance between faith and reason according to the basic approach of the Middle Ages. But what is reason nowadays? In the Middle Ages that was at first Plato., Plotinus and later Aristotle. But that approach is a bit different after Kant.] 

filial piety is not just an obligation, but the prime obligation.

"Honor your father and mother" is a dead letter in the religious world, and in the West in general. The general attitude in the religious world  and the West is that parents at best are no more than friends and most of the time much less.  Even major philosophers say openly that since one never asked to be brought into this world , therefore one owes no debt of gratitude towards one's parents. However you can ask on this. What is you are walking by a river and a little girl is drowning in the river and you just walk by and you say, "She never asked me to save her." Well you would say that is wrong. And what if you did save her? Does that means you never did her a favor because she did not ask for it?

This is in stark contrast to China and Confucius where filial piety is not just an obligation, but the prime obligation. No wonder China is on the rise, and the West is sinking. 

x73 music file

 x73 D Minor   [x73 in midi]  x73 in nwc format

Why is Musar--learning the works of Ethics of Torah important?

Why is Musar--learning the works of Ethics of Torah important? One reason is that often the very people that make their living by means of Torah can be the enemies of Torah.

The religious clothing and the whole song and dance about keeping Torah, can hide the agenda of getting naïve secular Jews to be slaves and servants and support of the patrician [morally-superior] class of the religious, [...that we secular Jews are just too stupid to understand or perceive. If only we would understand the moral and intellectual superiority of the religious we would just throw all our money at them and agree and acquiesce to subsistent on the bare minimum.]

That kind of thing can make it hard for simple people to learn Torah, and can take away the very desire to learn and keep Torah,-- i.e. by seeing the way the religious world is and acts towards baali teshuva [newly religious]. [And that is often atrocious.]

What does one do? I tend to say that Torah is important, and not responsible for those that misuse it. [The Romans even had a saying for this kind of thing, "Abuse does not cancel use." "Abusus non tollit usum."]

But that is not a really satisfying answer to this problem, since you assume that just learning and keeping Torah in itself ought to bring people to a higher moral level in which they would not be acting in such ways that clearly lack simple human decency. [Otherwise why learn it in teh first place?]

So it must be that there is something about the very way that they go about it is lacking some essential aspect. [Or that the religious are not in fact keeping Torah at all. Just the very opposite.]

This really great problem was addressed by Rav Israel Salanter in his efforts to bring the learning of Musar to people. 

While on one hand, this is a good answer for the problem--but not really all that powerful a cure. Mashgikim [spiritual directors of yeshivot] are often just failed roshei yeshiva that could not make the top grade, and so were appointed to be the spiritual directors.   

 And the further problem is that many people have found this kind of problem and their lives are destroyed, and yet have no shoulder to cry on since they are blamed themselves for what really lies at the feet of the religious world. 

From where does this disconnect come from? It seems to me that part of the reason is that a kind of force of evil got mixed up into the religious world. Something that the Gra tried to warn us about, but was not heeded. And that is found even in Litvak yeshivot.

What is the big deal you might ask? Because of something the sages of the Talmud said: :"The evil inclination abandons its attempts to seduce the while world and rest only on Israel. And then it abandons its efforts on Israel and takes itself to the Torah scholars." (That is to say that the very essence of the Dark Side is disguised in those that supposedly keep Torah).

[I am not saying that I am perfect in this regard. Rather that as well as I can keep the straight Torah path of the Gra all the better. And that I can wish that others might do the same and also pay more attention to the fact that he signed the letter of excommunication and repeated that fact several times afterwards, Showing that although we can not see this right off hand at first, still there is  a terrible danger that we may not see.]

 

My mistake was to leave the world of straight Torah of the Gra, Rav Israel Salanter and Rav Shach.]

Rav Shach does emphasize the importance of learning Torah and Musar.  And he was certainly not thinking about going to university, even though his son did become a doctor.

So I ought to ask forgiveness from people that read this blog that I do seem to differ on that point.

My excuse is that I did not fit in the yeshiva world. Even though I love Torah and agree with the Gra and Rac Shach and Rav Israel Salanter, still I simply did not find my place there. So more or less by force of circumstances, I had to go to major in Physics at the Polytechnic Institute of NYU.

But I regret that I was not able to learn Torah and Physics both. So I still try as much as possible to walk in this middle path of Torah with Derech Eretz [way of the Earth].   

So is that a thing to aim for? Or is it better just to sit and learn Torah? That is clearly still an unresolved question. Some of the great Litvak Yeshivas of NY do in fact aim for both, like Chaim Berlin and Torah VeDaat. Others like the Mir do not. The Mir aims for just Torah all day, every day. I have to admit that I tend to the more balanced approach. 

[I would like to suggest that the religious world suffers religious schizophrenia and from a kind of desire to become a patrician class [to rule over us low-lifes]. So learning Torah and competence in Torah is not the thing that they aim for, but rather the appearance of competence in Torah. So there is a large difference between the insane religious world and the sane, straight world of Litvak yeshivas. My mistake was to leave the world of straight Torah of the Gra, Rav Israel Salanter and Rav Shach.]

There was a mystic of the Middle Ages, Rav Avraham Abulafia

 There was a mystic of the Middle Ages, Rav Avraham Abulafia who held that Jesus was the Messiah Son of Joseph who was mentioned in the end of the Gemara Suka. I used to learn the micro films of his writings  before they were published by some fellow in Mea Shearim. [After they were published, I got involved in other studies.] At any rate, to gain some clarity about this particular figure, I asked Professor Moshe Idel at Hebrew University about him. [Moshe Idel  published lots of books about him and that strain of mystic thought.] 

The way I got interested in Avraham Abulafia was that he was quoted a lot by Moshe Cordovero and Rav Chaim Vital as for his system of unifications. But I see that his thought was really much more than that.

[This is not unconnected with Philosophy. The general approach of the mystics of the Middle Ages and the Ari (Isaac Luria) himself was Neo-Platonic. In fact, I had some difficulty in the problem of faith and reason until I discovered Dr. Kelley Ross of the Kant Friesian school [which is more or less based on Leonard Nelson]. Later I saw that Hegel also forms a kind of interface between these two approaches.]

Just because these strains of thought might be unfamiliar with people I think I should add one or two words to this note here to explain.

A basic problem about all of this is scientism. That is the doctrine that only what science measures can be true.  There is a lot more outside of science than inside science. So there is a place for faith. But faith is not flawless. It takes reason to be combined with faith to know in what should faith believe in.   

If you accept the opinion of some rishonim like Ibn Pakuda

 If you accept the opinion of some rishonim like Ibn Pakuda or the Rambam that learning ought to be in four divisions, Oral Law, Written Law, Metaphysics and Physics but you find that the learning does not come easily. The best idea is the saying of the words and going on without review until one gets to the end of the book and then to review again many time. This is in the gemara itself לעלם לגרס אנש אף על גב דמשכח ואף על גב דלא ידע מאי קאמר שנאמר גרסה נפשי לתאווה "Always one should say the words even though he forgets and even though he does not understand what he is saying."

[That is called "Bekiut." But review is also important. The question is how much emphasis to give to each part.]

Gra who is classified as a rishon

The climatic end of the Rishonim was the Gra who is classified as a rishon but yet comes later as a sort of seal on the period. And the significant thing about the Gra was the purity. He defines what Torah is about--even for us folks that are not on that level to fulfill any or even most of the details. That is why I recommend having a yeshiva on the name of the Gra in every city. This would have the benefit that even us common folk can have an idea of true and authentic Torah is about, even if we are not up to that level of being able to fulfill it.

x72 music file

 x72

Rav Israel Salanter's and the idea learning books on Ethics.

 Rav Israel Salanter's and Musar [learning books on Ethics]. Learning the books of Musar tends to give a different impression of what Torah is about than what one would assume. Without Musar the tendency is to imagine Torah being about all kinds of things that it really is not. Even though that can exist even inside of Litvak yeshivas where Musar is learned, still the tendency is a lot less.

That is to say that Musar more or less defines the major emphasis of Torah as being about Love and Fear of God and good character traits. And it goes at length into defining what is good character. Since that is not at all obvious not easily apparent to pure reason, there is a need for Musar.

Why is it that Musar [books on ethics written during the middle ages] does a better job of this than later books is not clear, still the fact is that later books that are claiming to show what Torah is about are usually just examples of religious fanaticism and insanity, --the result of schizoid personalities. 

[Musar  refers to a small set of books written during the Middle Ages, but also can include the books of the disciples of Rav Israel Salanter or the Gra.] 

[The idea of Musar is predicated on the more general idea of Litvak Yeshivas that the Rishonim [medieval thinkers] define what Torah is all about.]

Hegel has an idea he adapted from Goethe that the universe is one organic whole like a plant. Not just that each part is possible to figure out, but that all parts are part of one system. There can not be any part of truth that contradicts the other. This is similar to the method of Socrates who was able to find self contradictions in the opinions of others. He was thinking that once one gets to truth, contradictions will not be there. 

Particles do not travel through what we would normally consider to be space and time

 Particles do not travel through what we would normally consider to be space and time. They can not have that kind of trajectory since then at any specific place on that trajectory they would have  a definite position and a definite momentum. Rather they travel through Hilbert space.[i.e. a complex vector space with inner product. But that is an inner product where the first term is complex. Not the same as the inner product with just the cosine. (QM needs the "i" for it does not work without it.)] So they do not have classical values in space and time as the Bell inequality shows. That is: the Bell inequality does not show non locality [or as sometimes called causality] as some people have suggested that are not familiar with QM. Rather  they have values in Hilbert space. [So Bell's inequality does not show anything against relativity.]

[The way to conceive of this is that particles travel on a sphere inside the Hilbert space.]

There is a sort of limit to the areas where pure reason can reach as Kant showed.

 There is a sort of limit to the areas where pure reason can reach as Kant showed. And he also saw that when human reason attempts to pursue areas beyond what is beyond the possibilities of experience, that it comes up with self contradictions. Furthermore he saw a sort of psychological insight from that observation. That people that do attempt to probe into areas beyond the possibility of experience tend to go insane. So you can see why in the Litvak Yeshiva world, interest in mysticism is usually discouraged.

[However, that does not mean that I distrust anyone with spiritual insight. For example, the Gra himself   and from the middle ages, Rav Avraham Abulafia. Rather, it is just not something to do unless one is really on that level. Plus, there is the problem of discernment.]

The kind of approach that I take towards issues of faith is more or less this. That moral principles are universals. [I.e., laws or characteristics. Moral laws are universals since they are laws that things have in common. Like: it is wrong  to torture people for the fun of it. That is a law that applies to people, and they have in common.] And some universals are known or can be discerned by reason. Also morality is objective and not reducible to physical laws. See G.E. Moore and Prichard.  

x71 music file

 x71 Needs editing--but I have no way to access an mp3 program right now

Most of what you think and say are things you picked up from others

 Most of what you think and say are things you picked up from others. They are not original thoughts. That is why there is this idea of Rav Nahman of talking with God while being alone and trying to get in real contact with who you really are, and talking with God from your inner essence, not just what you have heard from other people. 

Why is authenticity important? After all if one is thinking of it as being important because I picked up the idea from the existentialists, then it in itself is not authentic.

The reason is that there is a discernable limit how much one can pick up until his whole inner essence gets erased. You can see this in undergraduate of high school papers which are often a large mixture of clichés.

You can hear this in people's conversation where almost every word is some "buzz word"  they picked up from he media or friends. 

I admit even after learning the existentialists I was not very impressed until I heard Jordan Peterson point out some of the good points that some of them brought up.]

I should mention in terms of Rav Nahman, that he was highly suspicious of doctors.

 I should mention in terms of Rav Nahman, that he was highly suspicious of doctors. [See Conversations of Rav Nahman, paragraph 50] And there is plenty of reason for that. However I also want to mention that in Uman there were great doctors. [Not trained during the time of the USSR, but later under Capitalism.] They were amazing at diagnosis and treatment. During my last period there, I had broken my foot by being chased by dogs outside of Sofia Park. I had not known how serious the injury was and collapsed on the street. Passersby called an ambulance, and I was brought to the local hospital. [Immediately given tests to see in anything else was wrong and then a bed, and never a word was said about payment.] The doctor, Sergei Alexivitch, and the whole group of doctors and nurses did an amazing job. The woman in charge of anesthesia was supper careful about not over doing it, but gave only local anesthesia-(instead of general which she realized could have been dangerous).  A nurse, Irina, held my hand to give me encouragement the whole time of the operation. [He is a young doctor who took his training after the USSR in the Institute at Dnieper. I would not have agreed to an operation if the doctor had been the same one that had been there during the time of the USSR  because even among the general people that doctors had a reputation as terrible. But not all that were trained during the period of the USSR were like that. I had experiences with older doctors also there that were highly competent.] 

The degree of care, concern and quality of care was astounding.

[That was just one example, but there is more to say because I was hanging around in that area because of my learning partner in Gemara, David Bronson. I should mention here also that the level of learning that  received from David was not less than Rav Shmuel Berenbaum at the Mir in NY, or Rav Naftali Yegger in Shar Yashuv.\

 As far as the vaccine is concerned see: 

Sonia Azevedo, a mum-of-two had no prior health conditions and hadn’t had any adverse effects after getting the Pfizer jab.

A 41-year-old health worker in Portugal suffered a “sudden death” just two days after receiving the Pfizer vaccine. According to the EuroWeeklynews, Sonia Azevedo, a mum-of-two had no prior health conditions and hadn’t had any adverse effects after getting the Pfizer jab. Sonia worked at the Institute of Oncology in Porto before she collapsed on New Year’s Day. An autopsy is expected to be completed in the coming days to establish the cause of death.

I should mention that near Uman is a hospital called the regional hospital that I went to also. That was after my foot injury I had been in bed and so my intestines were not moving as if I had been walking around. So I had abdominal pain and went to that regional hospital. The medicine they recommended for me worked within a about two minutes after taking it. And that was my general experience with doctors in Uman. They knew exactly what to recommend for what ever my problem was. They were extremely\ competent\. 

 x70 D Minor

x70 midi file x70 nwc

Rambam Laws of the Sanhedrin chap. 2 [paragraph 10]

Rav Shach says that both Rav Acha ben Ika and R. Abahu [in tractate Sanhedrin page 3] hold that one person can judge a case. [Meaning cases between two individuals.  The issue before Rav Acha and R Abahu is judging cases of civil law that come up between people. Not only that, but there can be cases where even the great Sanhedrin is wrong and has to itself bring sacrifices for making wrong judgments in cases involving karet [cutting off.] In those cases, if an individual knew better than the Sanhedrin then he is required to bring his own sacrifice, for he should not have followed the Sanhedrin when it was wrong. Thus we learn that objective morality does not depend on what the Sanhedrin says or on what anyone says. Objective right and wrong means that what is right is right, no matter what anyone says.]

At any rate, there is a debate between Rav Acha and R.Abahu if one person can be called a "court of law" [beit din] for laws that relate to a court of law, like admission before a court is different than admission outside a court.

You can see the point of Rav Shach right away in the Rambam Laws of the Sanhedrin chap. 2 [paragraph 10] where it says that a court of law is not less than three people even though one person can judge a case. Some rishonim (mediaeval authorities)[e.g., Rashba] thought that  means the Rambam poskined/decided like Rav Acha but Rav Shach says that to both Rav Acha and R Abahu, one can judge but to R Abahu he is not a court of law.    The proof that Rav Shach is right is that the Rambam writes, "If one judges that is Ok from the Torah, but from the words of the sages we need three. And two that judge, their judgment is not a judgment." If the Rambam would be poskening like Rav Acha ben Ika, then he would say two that judge, their judgment is a judgment. [To R. Abahu their judgment is not valid and that is what the Rambam wrote there so it does look at least in this place that the Rambam is going like R Abahu.] So he goes like R. Abahu and that shows that even R Abahu holds that one can judge from the Torah but is not considered a court of law.

However clear this might be in this place, still Rav Shach brings a few questions on this idea that I think would have given reason to the Rashba, the Ran, and the Keseph Mishna to say that the Rambam in fact poskined like Rav Acha. 

The question of Rav Shach about his own idea is this: R. Abahu holds "mixing of paragraphs" [eruv parshiot] so that all civil law needs a court of law of three. One is not a court of law to him. Then why is Iraq/Bavel [Babylon] can a civil court judge only cases of admissions or loans? That we can understand to Rav Acha who makes a difference between them and cases of injury or theft which are cases the Torah says needs a court of three people with ordination from mount Sinai. [That is the authentic ordination.] But To R. Abahu all cases are like that, and are judged in Iraq [anywhere outside of Israel] only because of the courts there being representatives of the court in Israel. But to Rav Acha there is no representation. They judge because they are a court --just not one that can judge cases where the Torah requires explicitly three judges with the authentic ordination which can not exist outside of Israel.

What is an issue here for me is that "mixing of paragraphs" [eruv parshiot] comes up in Bava Metzia  circa page 98. It seems if we hold of such a principle in one place we ought to hold of it elsewhere also.  

Government is something that is better not to get involved with.

 אל תתוודע לרשות "Don't be known to the government" [from Pirkei Avot]. Government is something that is better not to get involved with. However from the time of Socrates and Plato, it has been a subject of philosophical debate, but better not to be involved with. It does not really help you to be a better person, or gain good character or even get anywhere in life. it might be a subject of debate and perhaps there is some point in trying to apply reason to government, but when that happens the results are the opposite of reasonable.

a kind of knowledge that one knows but not by sense perception and not by reason.

In the Kant-Fries-Nelson school of thought there is a kind of knowledge that one knows but not by sense perception and not by reason. But this is not emotion either. Nor by structures imbedded in the brain

There is a tendency to understand Fries as ''psychologism'' [all in the mind[. And if that would be all there is to it, then I would not be impressed. But the way Dr. Kelley Ross understands and explains that school in a different way that made a lot of sense to me.

But there is a sort of conflict between this school of thought and Hegel-- which to me seems unjustified since they are dealing with different subjects. Hegel does not deal with how we know things. Empirical versus a priori. Rather with the very structure of reality itself.

So to me both the Kant-Fries and Hegel schools of thought seem important. Kind of like Plato and Aristotle are important, but not that we ought to choose between them. There is something to learn from both.

[As for the best of present day thinkers I would have to go with Dr. Kelley Ross at the Kant Friesian web site .]