8.5.16
Howard Bloom has made a point considering the super-organism and its effect on each person. This is in his book the Lucifer Principle. He takes this super organism as a kind of being in itself.
The point is hanging around in with people you recognize are a cult is a bad idea. If the whole group does not have the kind of character traits you think are admirable, you should leave. The Rambam made a similar point that a person is drawn in his traits and charter by the group he hangs out in.
Howard Bloom brings from the idea of hard wiring a computer. Once the circuits are set, that is it. It only takes a short time for the groups dynamics to get set inside ones cerebral cortex, and then get hard wired.
I think there is a difference between groups behavior individual behavior. There is such a thing as a Bell curve. While individual can rise above the group norms, that is still no reason to ignore the fact that there are groups norms. And the group norm is what one will be dragged into if he stays.
The point is hanging around in with people you recognize are a cult is a bad idea. If the whole group does not have the kind of character traits you think are admirable, you should leave. The Rambam made a similar point that a person is drawn in his traits and charter by the group he hangs out in.
Howard Bloom brings from the idea of hard wiring a computer. Once the circuits are set, that is it. It only takes a short time for the groups dynamics to get set inside ones cerebral cortex, and then get hard wired.
I think there is a difference between groups behavior individual behavior. There is such a thing as a Bell curve. While individual can rise above the group norms, that is still no reason to ignore the fact that there are groups norms. And the group norm is what one will be dragged into if he stays.
7.5.16
12 + 7 blessings
There are 12 + 7 blessings which are ignored. 12 are when the constellations rise in the east. 7 are when any of the planets enter the constellation of Nissan (the lamb) I forgot what it is called in English.
If people would take my advice as to the learning of Ethics {Musar} as being part theory and part practice by outdoor skills then this would be great project:-to learn to identify the constellations and the planets.
Each one is עושה מעשה בראשית.
To be able to tell the constellations is an important survival skill.
If people would take my advice as to the learning of Ethics {Musar} as being part theory and part practice by outdoor skills then this would be great project:-to learn to identify the constellations and the planets.
Each one is עושה מעשה בראשית.
To be able to tell the constellations is an important survival skill.
Gemara Shavuot מ''גע''ב 44 a שבועות
The מחלוקת between רש''י and רבינו חננאל. The גמרא original question was this: is there an מחלוקת between שמואל and רבי עקיבה and רבי אליעזר? The גמרא answers no. One is when the מלווה explained and the other case is when he did not. רש''י says the case of שמואל is when he did not.
To me it makes sense to say רבינו חננאל must have meant that the גמרא did not use the word "מלווה" because it would make no sense for the מלווה to explain the משכון is for the whole loan if that would weaken his position.
Now I wonder if going back to the original position of the גמרא as I mentioned in the above essay is related to this? For I have been suggesting that the גמרא did go back to its original position according to תוספות and the הרי''ף. So now understanding this original position makes sense.
And the fact of the matter is according to this idea of mine that רבינו חננאל is when the לווה spoke and רש''י is when the מלווה spoke we come out with the outstanding and amazing conclusion that there is no argument.
If the לווה spoke he increased his power and so if the מלווה lost the משכון it goes for the whole loan. If the מלווה spoke then it was he who increased his power and the משכון is only according to it monetary value.
Furthermore according to what I wrote before that the cases in בבא מציעא ק''ד and שבועות מ''ד are different this also might make a difference. That is: I wrote שבועות is when the משכון was lost and the גמרא in בבא מציעא is when the loan was not paid back and so the מלווה can go after the whole משכון. Going after the whole משכון might be when it was the מלווה who spoke. The case in שבועות is when the לווה spoke. And so these two are not disagreeing at all.
And this idea that the different גמרא in different places do not disagree is certainly a starting axiom of תוספות.
This might help us in terms of ראש חודש also.
I wrote in my little booklet עיוני בבא מציעא that the two גמרות in ראש השנה and סנהדרין seem to disagree. The גמרא in סנהדרין the day of ראש חודש does not depend on the סנהדרין and to one opinion in תוספות that means the מולד even though you can never see the actual מולד
The גמרא in ראש השנה makes clear everything depends on the ability to see the מולד. To resolve this it is possible to say the difference is when there is a sitting סנהדרין or not.
To me it makes sense to say רבינו חננאל must have meant that the גמרא did not use the word "מלווה" because it would make no sense for the מלווה to explain the משכון is for the whole loan if that would weaken his position.
Now I wonder if going back to the original position of the גמרא as I mentioned in the above essay is related to this? For I have been suggesting that the גמרא did go back to its original position according to תוספות and the הרי''ף. So now understanding this original position makes sense.
And the fact of the matter is according to this idea of mine that רבינו חננאל is when the לווה spoke and רש''י is when the מלווה spoke we come out with the outstanding and amazing conclusion that there is no argument.
If the לווה spoke he increased his power and so if the מלווה lost the משכון it goes for the whole loan. If the מלווה spoke then it was he who increased his power and the משכון is only according to it monetary value.
Furthermore according to what I wrote before that the cases in בבא מציעא ק''ד and שבועות מ''ד are different this also might make a difference. That is: I wrote שבועות is when the משכון was lost and the גמרא in בבא מציעא is when the loan was not paid back and so the מלווה can go after the whole משכון. Going after the whole משכון might be when it was the מלווה who spoke. The case in שבועות is when the לווה spoke. And so these two are not disagreeing at all.
And this idea that the different גמרא in different places do not disagree is certainly a starting axiom of תוספות.
This might help us in terms of ראש חודש also.
I wrote in my little booklet עיוני בבא מציעא that the two גמרות in ראש השנה and סנהדרין seem to disagree. The גמרא in סנהדרין the day of ראש חודש does not depend on the סנהדרין and to one opinion in תוספות that means the מולד even though you can never see the actual מולד
The גמרא in ראש השנה makes clear everything depends on the ability to see the מולד. To resolve this it is possible to say the difference is when there is a sitting סנהדרין or not.
schizoid typal personality types.--they are anything but maladjusted when it comes to reproduction.
Dr Hoffman at Irvine has some articles that are very suggestive of the system of thought of Kant. I am pretty sure he has not heard of the Kant approach for otherwise I think he would have mentioned it.
I saw Dr Hoffman mentioned on this blog
amerika
ted talk dr hoffman fitness cancels perception of all of reality
This explains schizoid typal personality types.--they are anything but maladjusted when it comes to reproduction. It is them and their children and friends that get all the good shiduchim [marriage proposals].
Even though their perception of reality is highly flawed.
You have to say this was the implied approach of the Rambam as per his idea that even natural law of Avraham the Patriarch had to be revealed by God and could not have been known by reason. This is implied in other places in the Guide and in the Eight Chapters {on Avot} where the Rambam continuously makes a distinction between perceiving the difference between true and false and knowing the difference between right and wrong.
But to claim the Rambam had already worked out a system like Kant would take a lot more than a few hints here and there. It would take a detailed study of the Guide for the perplexed with knowledge of Aristotle to even begin to get an idea of what he was talking about. Sadly knowledge of Aristotle nowadays is very superficial and of the Guide even less so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)