[s67 nwc]
8.11.16
.Resistance starts now!
Concerning the election, resistance is very important. That is not to bend or break but to uphold one's own moral integrity.
It does not matter who wins. The main thing is to learn and keep the Torah, the Oral and Written Law of Moses that transcends human law and human government
Resistance starts now! One must uphold the holy Torah in-spite of the government.
It does not matter who wins. The main thing is to learn and keep the Torah, the Oral and Written Law of Moses that transcends human law and human government
Resistance starts now! One must uphold the holy Torah in-spite of the government.
repent on our sins and to start to learn Torah,
No matter who wins, my recommendation is to repent on our sins and to start to learn Torah, the Oral and Written Law of Moses. In particular to begin a session in Gemara and another session in Musar every day. [Musar is ethics from the Middle Ages.]
Torah will survive.
It does look like Socialism will win. The Ghost of Marx has now come to the USA. Still Torah will go on.
I should mention I also hold like the Rambam like physics and metaphysics are important. I also believe that Physics should be done first thing in the morning when one wakes up based on the importance the Rambam gives to it. [Also as one gets older it is harder to spend as much time learning. I find if I can get an hour in that is already about as good as it gets for me. So the morning when one is fresh is the important time to do Physics.
I should mention also that Yeshivas can be a help for learning but since they are institutions they can be an hindrance also. The best bet is to do one's Torah study at home where one is not dependent on how he will be treated in a public place with lots of people around like yeshivas.
Torah will survive.
It does look like Socialism will win. The Ghost of Marx has now come to the USA. Still Torah will go on.
I should mention I also hold like the Rambam like physics and metaphysics are important. I also believe that Physics should be done first thing in the morning when one wakes up based on the importance the Rambam gives to it. [Also as one gets older it is harder to spend as much time learning. I find if I can get an hour in that is already about as good as it gets for me. So the morning when one is fresh is the important time to do Physics.
I should mention also that Yeshivas can be a help for learning but since they are institutions they can be an hindrance also. The best bet is to do one's Torah study at home where one is not dependent on how he will be treated in a public place with lots of people around like yeshivas.
New Music
S66 G major I was very busy this month so I wrote very little. Still this piece seems alright. But it does look like I reused an older theme at the end. In any case I present it here and hope that people get inspired and uplifted from it.
I know I do not have open comments here, but I want thank people for their time and attention to what I write. I hope people will be inspired to learn the Oral and Written Law and lead moral decent lives.
I know I do not have open comments here, but I want thank people for their time and attention to what I write. I hope people will be inspired to learn the Oral and Written Law and lead moral decent lives.
Faith, Reason, and the Constitution of the USA
I think the Constitution would work if faith had been strong. Faith and reason seems to have been the working formula of the Middle Ages and I think it worked well. Two things worked against this. The constant attacks on faith causes it to weaken, plus that fanatical faith which opened Protestants to the Dark Side. Also the Constitution was never meant to be workable except for a certain kind of people--people that believed in the Bible. Most of it was modeled on the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina written by John Locke and there there was a requirement to be part of a church --any church. Plus, John Locke saw the danger of Islam and said openly not to let any of them in (in his Two Treaties).
I think this is a very significant election because it will determine if the American Republic can survive, or will be washed away by barbarian hordes. And if America falls to the barbarians, that is the end of Western Civilization.
I did not go much into John Locke but I do think his approach is right but with a kind of modification based on Kant. Kant and Locke have a lot in common but to defend Locke one would need the ideas of Kant.
Habermas also noted that John Locke needs "retuning." But he did not suggest anything. My suggestion is to go with Kant. Habermas himself just mentioned this in his critique on Rawl's theory of justice.
Still John Locke needs reworking from the standpoint of Kant. Kelley Ross has already done work in that direction. But for my part I just want to say that John Locke and Kant do have a point of agreement. That is to say: what is the main question on John Locke? It is that it looks like his political are ideas is based on his empirical viewpoint. The defense is that first of all John Locke's political ideas work even better in the framework of Kant--the self being the ding an sich. And besides that Kant defends empirical-ism from the aspect of phenomenon anyway. It is only wrong if you assume all knowledge has to come from empirical means
I think this is a very significant election because it will determine if the American Republic can survive, or will be washed away by barbarian hordes. And if America falls to the barbarians, that is the end of Western Civilization.
I did not go much into John Locke but I do think his approach is right but with a kind of modification based on Kant. Kant and Locke have a lot in common but to defend Locke one would need the ideas of Kant.
Habermas also noted that John Locke needs "retuning." But he did not suggest anything. My suggestion is to go with Kant. Habermas himself just mentioned this in his critique on Rawl's theory of justice.
Still John Locke needs reworking from the standpoint of Kant. Kelley Ross has already done work in that direction. But for my part I just want to say that John Locke and Kant do have a point of agreement. That is to say: what is the main question on John Locke? It is that it looks like his political are ideas is based on his empirical viewpoint. The defense is that first of all John Locke's political ideas work even better in the framework of Kant--the self being the ding an sich. And besides that Kant defends empirical-ism from the aspect of phenomenon anyway. It is only wrong if you assume all knowledge has to come from empirical means
7.11.16
Sin
To some degree, I feel like I ought to repent on my sins. What brings me to that conclusion is the fact that things get more and more מצומצם constricted. That is at what the Talmud says "אין יסורים בלא עוון" [''There are no troubles without sin.'']
That is.-- sin might not be the cause of the trouble - but if there was not a sin, then the trouble could not reach the person.
So when I try to consider my own sins, it occurs to me the main thing seems be things along the lines of not appreciating what I had. For example-- my parents, the Mirrer yeshiva in NY, Eretz Israel, the אור אין סוף, learning Gemara etc. I mean I do not think the lack of appreciation is as serious as the lack of continuing in the good things that I could have reasonably been expected to continue in.
This of course is not news.
However the reason I bring this up is that this idea gives a way to judge others on the scales of merit. For after all what is a wicked person? It does not matter if their wickedness comes from their accepting a social meme from their parents or environment or free will. The fact of their being wicked comes from a simple thing--doing less than what they could reasonably have been expected to do and understand. Therefore even the most wicked people in the world are really not all that different from me.
I had an idea of repenting on my sins a few years back. I think it was, in fact, four years ago. The idea I came up with then was to learn Musar [Ethical books from the Middle Ages.] I am not sure if that helped much. And it did not last long. Still it seems to me to be the best thing that I can figure out. One advantage of Musar I think is that there are lots of things that at one time I considered to be great mitzvas and later understood they were terrible sins. The basic books of Musar from the middle ages are about as straight and simple as possible in explaining simply what God does and does not require based on the Law of Moses. So there is less leeway for mistakes. It is straight Torah. It is different from what came later which tend to be not very well thought out religious fanaticism.
That is.-- sin might not be the cause of the trouble - but if there was not a sin, then the trouble could not reach the person.
So when I try to consider my own sins, it occurs to me the main thing seems be things along the lines of not appreciating what I had. For example-- my parents, the Mirrer yeshiva in NY, Eretz Israel, the אור אין סוף, learning Gemara etc. I mean I do not think the lack of appreciation is as serious as the lack of continuing in the good things that I could have reasonably been expected to continue in.
This of course is not news.
However the reason I bring this up is that this idea gives a way to judge others on the scales of merit. For after all what is a wicked person? It does not matter if their wickedness comes from their accepting a social meme from their parents or environment or free will. The fact of their being wicked comes from a simple thing--doing less than what they could reasonably have been expected to do and understand. Therefore even the most wicked people in the world are really not all that different from me.
I had an idea of repenting on my sins a few years back. I think it was, in fact, four years ago. The idea I came up with then was to learn Musar [Ethical books from the Middle Ages.] I am not sure if that helped much. And it did not last long. Still it seems to me to be the best thing that I can figure out. One advantage of Musar I think is that there are lots of things that at one time I considered to be great mitzvas and later understood they were terrible sins. The basic books of Musar from the middle ages are about as straight and simple as possible in explaining simply what God does and does not require based on the Law of Moses. So there is less leeway for mistakes. It is straight Torah. It is different from what came later which tend to be not very well thought out religious fanaticism.
miracles from the Dark Side.
Some people would object to this but I have found it helpful for me to get perspective on cult goings on in the Jewish world by looking at parallel movements in the wider world. I think noticed someone mention this concerning people involved in Eastern cults.
Professor Moshe Idel coined the term ecstatic Kabalah but in essence this does not do justice the the phenomenon. Straight Torah can lead to genuine mystic experience I think. But mystics even from the middle ages do not seem to have powers any different than Hindu gurus. As I said it is helpful to do some comparing of the cult you are in with other cults that make the exact same claims and have the same miracles from the Dark Side.
Professor Moshe Idel coined the term ecstatic Kabalah but in essence this does not do justice the the phenomenon. Straight Torah can lead to genuine mystic experience I think. But mystics even from the middle ages do not seem to have powers any different than Hindu gurus. As I said it is helpful to do some comparing of the cult you are in with other cults that make the exact same claims and have the same miracles from the Dark Side.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)