a good way to argue for Kant and Plato in terms of there being two levels of reality

There is a good way to argue for Kant and Plato in terms of there being two levels of reality. The dinge an sich things in themselves and the level of phenomenon.

This you can see by the collapse of the wave function into just one state from many possible states.
So on that level there are no classical values of space or time until something is measured. This is like Kant that space and time are imposed by the subject. This also goes along with Plato that there is some higher realm of Ideas not dependent on objects or the classical world.

The other level of reality is the classical world where causality exists and is definitely local. This is seen in GPS satellites. [They have to be calibrated to account for Special Relativity and General Relativity both. The speed they go around the Earth makes them lose time. The fact they are far out from the gravitational center of the Earth means they go faster. In fact the effect of General Relativity is far stronger in this case than Special Relativity. The clocks on the satellites do go fast compare to earth. To get them to correspond they have to be slowed down.]
But there also is some connection between these two realms because the wave function also collapses when there is a thermal bath in the area of the quantum particle.   


[But this would not be the general way Kant was understood by what was called the Neo Kantian schools that denied the very existence of dinge an sich. The only way this would work would be the way that Leonard Nelson understood Kant--which was definitely not the main stream.]

[I should mention that not all schools of thought based on Leonard Nelson are equal. There seems to be  a lot of interest in England and Germany, but the major proponent is Dr Kelley Ross in California and he builds on Nelson, but also on others. ]

To be quite frank I have to say that Leonard Nelson seems a lot better than anything else being done in academia. For some reason people seem to be attracted to Heidegger and/or Marx for reasons that seem to have nothing to do with logical rigor or even the slightest possibility of validity.

The altar in the Temple was set up even before the walls of Jerusalem were built.

There seem to me to be good reasons to bring sacrifices in the Temple in Jerusalem. The well known reason is in Leviticus where different kinds of sacrifices are commanded.
But to me there is more evidence. One is the statement of the King of Judah  when he was arguing with Jeroboam ben Navat where he was claiming that his position was correct because in his territory they were bringing the sacrifices taught in the Law of Moses.
Another proof is in the book of Ezra where the people that returned to Israel did not just build the walls of Jerusalem, but also the altar and began to bring sacrifices, and they said the reason they were bringing the sacrifices was because that is what is commanded in the Law of Moses.

I mean to argue against those that think that sacrifices are not an essential aspect of the Torah.

[There are people that say that the Law of Moses is still obligatory, but that the sacrifices were something added on later. But from what I can tell there is plenty of internal evidence from the entire Old Testament that the sacrifices are an essential part of the Law.]


In fact the altar in the Temple was set up even before the walls of Jerusalem were built. That means to bring the regular sacrifices was a high priority.
One very positive thing about this would be to have a nice family outing and a barbecue by bringing what is called שלמים peace offerings.  You can see how this kind of nice family outing would be instrumental in bringing families together.

[You would however have to genetically engineer a red cow before any of this would be practical. But that seems to be simple. Even without genetically engineering you could get something close to a red cow by simple mating over a few generations. The whole process ought to be simple nowadays.]

The reason this has not been done already is beyond me. It seems to be an extremely simply thing with genes to get a red cow.

בבא בתרא דף צ''ב ע''א

בבבא בתרא דף צ''ב ע''א ר' עקיבא איגר asks a question on the רשב''ם.
That רשב''ם brings the idea that if a bull gored a cow and the calf is found next to it the law is to divide ממון המוטל בספק חולקים. That is like סומכוס. The רשב''ם says that is the law even if either one is sure and the other in doubt. רב עקיבא איגר asks that if המוחזק the one that is is possession of the money is sure, then even סומכוס agrees המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה as it says in the משנה in בבא מציעא צ''ז ע''א השואל אומר שכורה מתה והמשאיל אומר איני יודע פטור. The גמרא says there is a debate. One person says ברי ושמא ברי עדיף. The other person says the משנה is a case of עסק שבועה ביניהם. So the simple thing is to say the רשב''ם is talking according to the opinion עסק שבועה ביניהם.  I mean even in a case of ברי ושמא the rule is to סומכוס ממון המוטל בספק חולקים בלי שבועה and only in a case of עסק שבועה that ברי עדיף
[I should mention the mishna there is like Sumhos.]


בבא בתרא דף צ''ב ע''א
בבבא בתרא דף צ''ב ע''א ר" עקיבא איגר שואל שאלה על הרשב''ם. רשב''ם זה מביא את הדין שאם שור נגח פרה ועגל נמצא לידו החוק הוא לחלק, ממון המוטל בספק חולקים כמו סומכוס. הרשב''ם אומר כי זה החוק אפילו אם אחד הוא בטוח ושני בספק. רב עקיבא איגר שואל שאם המוחזק (זה שנמצא ברשותו את הכסף) הוא בטוח, אז אפילו סומכוס מסכים המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה כפי שכתוב משנה בבבא מציעא צ''ז ע''א השואל אומר שכורה מתה והמשאיל אומר איני יודע פטור. הגמרא אומרת שיש ויכוח. אחד אומר ברי ושמא ברי עדיף. השני אומר המשנה הוא מקרה של עסק שבועה ביניהם. אז הרשב''ם מדבר כדעת עסק שבועה ביניהם. 

Bava Batra 92a

It does not seem like a big deal because the questions of Rav Akiva Eiger are often only to one opinion.  In any case in Bava Batra 92a he asks a question on the Rashbam.
That Rashbam in itself is of great interest but just to be short he brings the idea that if a bull gored a cow and the calf is found next to it the law is to divide the amount of the cow and calf in half.-That is like Sumhus. The Rashbam says that is even if either one is sure and the other in doubt.
Rav Akiva Eiger asks that if the one that is is possession of the money is sure then even Sumhus agrees המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה as it says in the Mishna in Bava Metzia 97 השואל אומר שכורה מתה והמשאיל אומר איני יודע פטור.
The Gemara  says there is a debate. One person says ברי ושמא ברי עדיף. The other person says the Mishna is a case of עסק שבועה ביניהם.
So the Rashbam is talking according to the opinion עסק שבועה ביניהם.

(I noticed this aspect of Rav Akiva Eiger at the Mir in NY. There was some question of his somewhere in Shabat and I noticed an opinion somewhere that would have answered it.)

Tikun HaKlali [general correction]

I tend to believe that the Ran from Breslov was right about the Tikun HaKlali [general correction] mainly because it makes sense to me in itself. Plus this was an area he gave a lot of time and thought and effort towards. If you look at writings of Isaac Luria and previous writers you can see that sexual sin is significant and requires some kind of repentance. But the general ways of going about it seem either impossible or difficult.
Also I tend to give confidence in people that are experts in their fields.--So when Reb Nahman says something that clearly he spent a great deal of effort on, I tend to trust him.

The basic idea is that in the Torah there are different levels of sexual sin. The most famous ones are in Leviticus called the עריות forbidden relations. Some of those get the death penalty and some are merely lashes, but they all get כרת {what the Torah calls being cut off from ones people which more or less means being cut off from one's portion in the next world.} [You can go through the list if you want, but right now I would rather continue my train of thought. Homosexual relations are included in this most severe category.]
After the עריות [forbidden relations] there are other things that are לאווין simple prohibitions from the Torah. Off hand I would say a Kohen with a divorced woman is one example. But there are many other examples.
The aspect and insight that Reb Nahman brings to this is in his Magnum Opus Vol I:29 that שמירת הברית (sexual purity) is the key.
Since "spilling seed in vain" comes under the category of sexual sin, he spent time and effort to find some correction and came up with two things. First to go to a natural body of water like a river that same day. Next is to say ten psalms 16,32, 41, 42, 59, 77, 90,105 137 150. [And to intend the Divine Names אלף למד אלף למד הי יוד מם.]


While  I am not expert in Rav Isaac Luria, I would have to say that this idea of the Ran from Breslov makes a lot of sense based on what I do know. The עשרה מיני נגינה [ten types of song] are certainly brought up in the Tikunei HaZohar. The whole thing seems well based on the Ari and the Zohar.
[The actual things Rav Isaac Luria says to do are fasting and certain unifications. Unifications to me seems to work only if the "electric current" is running. If one is disconnected with the Divine light, then they simply do nothing. So Reb Nahman's idea makes a lot of sense.]

The סטרא אחרא [Realm of Darkness] has the ability to give people true spiritual powers to enable them afterwards to trick them.

The events surrounding the fall of King Ahab [the King of Israel] are  not well known. The basic thing was he was together with Yehoshaphat (King of Judah) and all the prophets were telling him to go up to retake Ramot HaGilead.
  Yehoshaphat asked him, "Is there no true prophet here to tell us the word of God?" They brought Mihayu.

  He said, "I saw the Lord sitting on his throne asking, 'Who will go and trick Ahab?' A lying spirit came forth and said 'I will.'

The Lord asked him 'How?' He said 'I will be  a lying spirit in the mouths of his prophets.'[Ahab then in fact went to war and fell in battle.]

To me this seems to be a warning about the problem when some people get some things right and that lends to them credibility. So then they have the ability to cause people to fall later because of their initial credibility.

The סטרא אחרא [Realm of Darkness] has the ability to give people true spiritual powers to enable them afterwards to trick them. [In Lithuanian Yeshivas this kind of phenomenon is well understood and thus people there are more careful.]

[It should be noted that the actual sin involved was not idolatry but rather the fact that Ahab had murdered someone Navot and taken his field-even though it was done according to the laws of the Torah. Two witnesses came and testified that Navot had cursed. That is something there is a death penalty for. At any rate, what I want to point out is בין אדם לחבירו obligations between man and his fellow man were the reason Ahab was killed. This goes along with Rav Israel Salanter who did make a point of the aspect of Torah that is between man and one's fellow man. You can see this in particular in the books of Musar of his disciples like Navardok and the אור צפון. [This last one I do not know if it is in print anymore.]]

What I am trying to get to is this: the actual falling at Ramot Gilead was the result of an original sin. That is a first sin that caused Ahab later to be able to be fooled by the lying spirit. This is the issue: to identify one's first sin that caused all the later problems. For the bed one makes that is the bed he sleeps in. Everything goes by the original pattern that one chooses--the original set of rules one decides to go with. If you get that wrong, then you  have no one to blame for subsequent problems.

In other words real, authentic attachment with God is only on a personal private level.

The Ran from Breslov is the only one who warned against false teachers of Torah on a huge scale.

This type of warning you can see in the Talmud itself and also in the Rishonim . But nothing like the force that the Ran from Breslov brings to this issue.

Why this is important is that good intended people can easily be fooled.

This is one good reason to  attend  Reform Temples only-- because that is the only safe way to avoid this problem.  There are other very good reasons to attend Reform Temples --for example the emphasis on balance and the awareness that a good deal of Torah is all about good traits.

The end result of all this is the longing for God and the ultimate meaning of life really has to be personal and at home or in the forest--another point that the Ran himself emphasized.

I should mention that I was very inspired to walk on this path of the Ran [Nahman from Breslov]  and felt great attachment to God while on that path for the few years I was in Safed.
[That is the path of personal prayer towards God while alone in a forest or some other lonely spot.]

In other words real, authentic attachment with God is only on a personal private level.