The Constitution of the USA

There is an aspect to the Constitution that is not mentioned often. It is this. It was the way in the ancient world that if you had a small village that was just barely surviving and there was a neighboring village that was doing better you had two choices. Do better--work harder. But that turns out to be hard. It is much easier to get a few men together and invade the next village and kill the men and enslave the women. The only protection from this was for the other village to have more men. And thus States arose. The more men--the more protected you were. And thus arose Empires also. The bigger--the better. This is the unspoken story about the USA Constitution.It is a way to get everyone together to make a State.But the unique thing is it is based on moral principles not just might makes right like the Left. [In this I am leaving out the important point that human flourishing depends on there being a state.] In any case the Constitution depends on the kind of people that created it. It can not exist without the majority of the people agreeing with it's principles. I mean it can not be a unifying force strong enough to create a nation unless people agree with it.

The reason socialism appeals to people is also because of agreement but its agreement depends on greed. "Take from the rich and give it to us." It appeals to the lowest denominator of human nature. The Constitution appeals to the highest aspects of human nature.

In the yeshiva world in the Mir in N.Y. and Shar Yashuv in Far Rockaway the emphasis was on learning Torah. The basic idea I think is that you can either tell people what your ideas of morality and justice are and hope that they will accept them. Or a better choice is let people learn Torah, and thus teach themselves morality.
This goes along with the basic problem of trying to convince other's of your own ideas. Usually it does not work. But when people learn Torah and Musar along the lines of Reb Israel Salanter and the Gra--in that way they teach themselves.
But I never really saw much justification for this idea until I learned the Nefesh HaChaim by a disciple of the Gra. There he brings the well known ideas about learning Torah from Shas.

That is to say that learning Torah is a drawing down of the light of the (4) שם מ''ה יוד הא ואו הא  and therefore on a whole new level beyond any of the other commandments of the Torah.

The idea of Musar I should mention is also along the same lines. It is not possible to reach the "self" directly because only the surface of the self is visible. But by learning Torah and Musar one indirectly can reach the self. [ I might mention the important principle of not speaking Lashon Hara [speaking evil] about others as being the opposite side of the coin of learning Torah.--That is to say that both of these things together reach to the light of the שם מ''ה {Divine Name with the value 45}

But both of these ideas  are based on Chazal. You can not just go through the Torah and find something that appeals to you and claim that "This... is the main thing."  That is called המגלה פנים התורה שלא כהלכה and the Rif and Rosh say that books that claim that type of thing  are in the category of ספרים חיצוניים -books of the Dark Side.
 Since it came up I might as well expand a bit. The basic idea of the Ari Isaac Luria is that at first there was no place for creation because the Infinite Light was everywhere and so God contracted Himself  to create a hollow space for creation (and left a spot of his light in the middle ) and then drew into it a קו וחוט a line and thread of his Infinite Light which went down a drop and then turne towards the sides to make the first sepherah of circles. Then from there down some more nine more times. Then came אדם קדמון The ten sepherot in the form of  a man. Then from his ears nose mouth were drawn more worlds. Then from his eyes. That last one caused the breaking of the vessels and then the light of the שם מ''ה [name of value 45] shown to make a correction. That is the short story of why it is important to learn Torah. That is because it draws that light which is a correction to all the kelipot and breaking of the vessels.
I usually do not go into this because the Dark Side has taken the Ari as prisoner..

In the beginning of בבא בתרא the גמרא is trying to figure out if היזק ראיה שמיה היזקץ or not? They do this at first by looking at the משנה
The משנה says that if שותפים want to divide a court yard they build a wall.
The words the משנה uses are שרצו לעשות מחיצה.  So the question is what is a מחיצה? A wall? or just some sticks stuck in the ground to show where the dividing line is. The גמרא seems to say that if the word מחיצה means a wall [גודא] then we learn from this that היזק ראיה לאו שמיה היזק.
I have at this point in time no idea what the גמרא means. Does it mean this. If it means a wall then there is no proof one way or the other. Only if it means a division, then we can deduce that היזק ראיה שמיה היזק. Or does it mean there is an actual proof?

I think it is possible that the גמרא is thinking like this. If the משנה would hold היזק ראיה שמיה היזק then it would have written השותפים שרצו ליחלק בונים כותל. That is to say it had an easy way of adding a little more information. But it choose not to do so. Therefore it must hold לאו שמיה היזק



בתחילת בבא בתרא הגמרא מנסה להבין אם היזק ראיה שמיה היזק או לא? הם עושים זאת בהתחלה  על ידי שמסתכלים במשנה. המשנה אומרת שאם שותפים רוצים לחלק חצר הם בונים קיר. המילים שהמשנה משתמשת בהן הן  "שרצו לעשות מחיצה". אז השאלה היא מה היא מחיצה? קיר? או רק מקלות תקועים באדמה כדי להראות היכן הקו המפריד הוא. גמרא נראית שרוצה לומר שאם המילה מחיצה פירושו קיר [גודא] אז אנחנו לומדים מכך היזק ראיה לאו שמיה היזק. אין לי בשלב הזה מושג מה הגמרא מכוונת. האם זאת אומרת - אם פירושו קיר אז אין הוכחה לכאן או לכאן. רק אם זה אומר חלוקה, אז אנחנו יכולים להסיק כי היזק ראיה שמיה היזק. או אולי פירוש הדבר ישנה הוכחה בפועל?


אני חושב שזה אפשרי שהגמרא חושבת ככה. אם המשנה מחזיקה שהיזק ראיה שמיה היזק אז היא היתה כותבת השותפים שרצו ליחלק בונים כותל. כלומר היה למשנה דרך קלה להוסיף קצת יותר מידע. אבל היא בחרה שלא לעשות זאת. לכן היא חייבת להחזיק לאו שמיה היזק.

In the beginning of Bava Batra the Gemara is trying to figure out if היזק ראיה שמיה היזקץ. (Damage caused by seeing is damage or not). They do this at first by looking at the Mishna
The Mishna says that if partners want to divide a court yard they build a wall.
The words the mishna uses are שרצו לעשות מחיצה (that wanted to make a division) so the question is what is a מחיצה (division)? A wall? or just some sticks stuck in the ground to show where the dividing line is. The Gemara seems to say that if the word מחיצה means a wall [גודא] then we learn from this that היזק ראיה לאו שמיה היזק ((Damage caused by seeing is not damage).
I have at this point in time no idea what the Gemara means. Does it mean that if it means a wall then there is no proof one way or the other. Only if it means a division then we can deduce that היזק ראיה שמיה היזק. Or does it mean there is an actual proof?


I think it is possible that the gemara is thinking like this: If the Mishna would hold היזק ראיה שמיה היזק then it would have written השותפים שרצו ליחלק בונים כותל. That is to say it had an easy way of adding a little more information. But it choose not to do so. Therefore it must hold לאו שמיה היזק

 The issue of love and family is hard to figure out. When I was in high school I waited for my Dad [almost every day ] to pick me up at the public library and there I read some of the symposium of Plato which is about Love. I must say growing up in my parent's home along with my learning of Plato gave me a very idealistic concept of what Love is all about.

[This left me unprepared for the cynical type of marriage that exists today -that which is called marriage but is really just a financial arrangement. The "real thing", the authentic connection between souls I think no longer exists.]

What accounts for charismatic leaders? Sometimes someone really knows what they are talking about and that can account for it. That is the reason people will flock to a lecture in Quantum Mechanics from Leonard Susskind.

  But other times it is hard to tell. Most often charismatic leaders  are ignorant of what they profess to know, but are in their position because of the snowball effect. They managed to get one or two people under their influence and then those people go out to make more converts etc. Sometimes like in academia you have  a group of people that award to each other credentials.

A friend played for me  a  little bit of of an Allan Watts talk on Buddhism. He started out saying that survival is a game. He then explained that survival is just a game that people play. He elaborated on this theme  a little and bit and I asked my friend what he learned from that. It occurs to me that what Allan Watts was saying to his audience was that their survival was just a game to him. It seems unlikely that he was saying that his own survival is just a game. I think he took his own survival deathly serious. So I wonder what is it about someone that is spouting utter nonsense that people get attracted to?

Mainly I would have to say that it is the desire to fit into a social group that gets people to accept whatever themes they say and to respect whom so ever they respect.

But unless something is really evil, I think it is best not to criticize. Say criticism for when it is absolutely necessary. I think much of the interest in Buddhism is a reaction to corrupt religions in the West and so it makes little sense to criticize what might be good for the people that are following it..

[People have needs that can be satisfied only in a social group. So the message of many groups is: agree with us and you will be accepted. Disagree? Then get out. ] Women nowadays use that leverage--you want to be in  a relationship you have to agree that she is a supreme being worthy of worship and praise. [At least that is what I found among Western women.]

Renaissance and the Enlightenment

I like the Renaissance a lot and Kant was pro Enlightenment to some degree. I mean though in fact he was pro Enlightenment, still in his system you find an area in which Reason has trouble penetrating. And that seems to leave room for faith. That is at least how Kant and Dr Kelley Ross look at it.

But with Hegel you really do not need the area of the dinge an sich/things in themselves to be immune from Reason, but rather a realm that some kind of awareness does exist.


I have never been able to blame the problems of the modern world on the Renaissance nor on the Enlightenment. Rather my own tendency has been to see Rousseau as the actual source of the problems. Later I saw in fact a few problems in Locke and Hume that I think may also contribute to the problems. But I still would not blame the Enlightenment itself.


[Dr Ross I would surely disagree with me about Hegel, but at this point I think that it is true that Hegel holds from an area of faith/knowledge that is not based on reason , nor understanding, nor empirical evidence. At least that is what I saw one time in reading Hegel. But Hegel would call it spirit--as different from Absolute Spirit.]

And furthermore I think it is necessary to agree with me. How can one think that all areas of spirit are open to knowledge by means of Reason or dialectics in Hegel's system?

Of course Hegel is open to abuse as the Marxists have found out. But I still can not see him to blame for that when openly the Marxists reject most of his system. but use some concepts they found useful.


There are plenty of problematic issues nowadays, but I would not blame the Renaissance nor the Enlightenment for them.

The problem that I see is the Satan that goes around with his agents. The way to get out of the problem with the Dark Side is not at all clear. The thing is there are different areas of value, and the main job of every person is to penetrate to the good core and avoid the kelipa [evil] in each area.