Yuri Bezmenov, KGB Defector,

From Info Wars: Yuri Bezmenov, KGB Defector, warned Americans of the scientific demoralization campaigns waged in media decades ago. Learn to identify these techniques aimed at subverting American culture.

His basic point was that most of the funds that the KGB had were being used on disinformation and specifically directed to subvert the USA into Socialism.

To me it seems that until the files can be reopened it would be impossible to understand the exact involvement of the KGB in turning the USA towards Socialism. Obvious there has been a tremendous success in that direction. Even though Democrats do not use the word "socialism", still a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Socialism by any other name would still be socialism.  

I discussed this once with a friend that used to work for the KGB and his opinion was that the KGB did not have the resources that could have subverted  the USA. And now I can see his point. Still what exactly were their activities? And how much of the turn was because of the KGB and how much was simply the fact that many intellectuals believed in socialism. It does not have to be a plot. Still the whole history of this affair is curious. You have got to wonder if Russia would ever be willing to let research again into the KGB archives?

I ought to be upfront about my own beliefs just for the record. I do not hold at all from socialism. The reason is mainly that I think people have a right to their hard earned money. That is I believe in the Ten Commandments. Specifically:  "Thou shalt not steal". So I see no merit in stealing from the rich based on some ideology that says that they themselves must have stolen it or other excuses.

Rav Avraham Abulafia went to debate with the pope.

It is well known that Rav Avraham Abulafia went to debate with the pope. The way the events are related is that people were sent to arrest him as he reached the gates of Rome. But somehow or other they could not stop him. At that point the pope ran away to another city.

Now on one hand hand Rav Abulafia had a high opinion about Jesus. So that probably was not the issue of what he wanted to debate. But he had a low opinion of the Catholic church. So maybe that was one of the issues?

[Maybe the Trinity? It seems impossible on one hand, however Hegel seems to have an approach that to me seems reminiscent of the Neo Platonic school of Plotinus.]

There is a book by professor Moshe Idel Sonship which goes into the issue of being a son of God as understood by mystics like Rav Abulafia in the Middle Ages.

 

The "seal of the sixth day" is how Jesus is referred to elsewhere inRav Abulafia That seems to be a reference to the idea in the Talmud about a of a messiah son of yoseph

I noted that most people have no idea of what sexual sin is. So just to make it clear the first category are the things mentioned in Leviticus 18 which are called עריות "revealing the nakedness". That is mostly with the same family but includes a menstruating woman and a married woman and sodomy.
But all those are the most serious as you can see by the punishment "Karet" being cut off from one's people and in most of them there is a death penalty.
But there are plenty of lesser categories in Deuteronomy which are all just plain prohibitions "Lavin".

[Like when it says an Egyptian should not come into the congregation for three generations. That is an example of a regular "Lav" prohibition. 


I mean to say that all sins in the Law of Moses are all plain prohibitions unless something like karet is specified.

 Rav Nahman  said that a kind of correction for sexual sin [what is called "Tikun HaKlali"] is to say ten psalms in order. [16, 32, 41, 42, 59, 77, 90, 105, 137, 150]. But that is along the lines of repentance on sin.
Also he mentions going to [and into -totally] a natural body of water like an ocean or river. [That is anyway a good idea.]

[As the Gates of Repentance [Rav Yona of Gerondi] brings right in the beginning of his book that you can not repent until you have an accurate idea of what really is a sin and what is not.

One problem is that people make no distinctions in levels of sin. There are some sins that have "karet" as a spiritual cutting off from the next world or even the death penalty. Now a death penalty is only for things done on purpose.  But for lots of things like that that are done by accident there is a sacrifice. That is the sin offering. [Nowadays we do not bring that anymore since there is no Temple.] But for things that are just prohibitions there is no sacrifice nor any death penalty.

The basic idea of learning Physics that I have mentioned is to some degree based on the Rishonim like Ibn Pakuda and the Rambam. But I have seen statements in the books of Rav Nahman of Breslov which also indicate as much.

However what is it that stops people from doing so?

One is lack of desire. I have tried to cure that by showing that it is in fact included in the commandment to learn Torah - according to some rishonim.

Another obstacle is lack of energy. I have mentioned a way to solve this by combining coffee and tea in the same drink. [That was something that Israel Abussera  used to have when he got up for the midnight prayer. I heard that from one of his grandchildren (Moshe Buso) that used to prepare that for him].
Another obstacle is method. For that I have mentioned Rav Nahman's way of saying the words as fast as possible and going on with no repeats until one finishes the books, and then doing the whole over from the beginning.

[I ought to add that the same group of Rishonim [mediaeval authorities] that held this way also help from learning Aristotle's Metaphysics. Yet when it comes to that side I am not sure what exactly to include in that subject. On one hand you have the four greats Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel. But those last two seem to be in need of commentary. So as far as that goes I think Leonard Nelson is the best approach to Kant, and McTaggart the best approach to Hegel. [But people that hold with Kant are often at odds with those that go with Hegel and visa versa.]

[One of the best of this generation is Kelley Ross of the Kant Fries school. But there are also some other really great people like Ed Feser, and Huemer. There are also some others that maybe are not as great but have really hit some home runs like Habermas and Robert Hanna.]

In the beginning of laws of marriage in Rav Shach's Avi Ezri.

In the beginning of laws of marriage in Rav Shach's Avi Ezri.
There is the subject of  "kinyan Sudar" [buying by means of handkerchief]. That is is a way of buying as we see in the book of Ruth where at the end of the book it says there is a way to acquire or sell by means of taking off one's shoe and giving it to the party. Is it the category of barter, or buying by money?

So when Rav Shach writes at the end the Rambam holds kinyan sudar [buying by handkercheif] is  a kind of buying by money This is hard to understand. [note 2]

We know the Raavad and the R''id [Rav Yeshaya of Trani]] hold that way.
But the Rambam?


For after all the Rambam is pretty consistent that kinyan sudar [barter] does not work to marry a woman. [note 1] So that means barter is not any kind of buying by money. And that also goes along with the fact that exchange of a needle with a coat of armor has no law of overcharging [that is the normal law that overcharge by 1/5 is not valid]. And Rav Shach right before that explained how the Rambam explains barter as being an exchange in which there is no object causing the deal to be valid. Rather when one person picks up the object he is getting --that is when he acquires it. And when the other picks up his object that is when he acquires it.

It is the the Tosphot Ri''d and the Raavad that hold if the handkerchief is worth more than a pruta penny, then the buying is because of a buying by money. You see that in the Tosphot Ri''d who actually says so openly. That is -that Kinya Sudar will not work to acquire a woman unless the handkerchief has more than the value of a penny. And the Raavad also says that kinyan sudar will work to let a slave go free. [So he also holds kinyan sudar works as money]
So someone ought to go to the original handwritten notes of Rav Shach and see what he actually wrote there. I am sure that the names Raavad and Rambam got mixed up.

[[note 1]]. I mean to say that the normal way of marrying a woman is by money, sex or a document. But something "worth money" also works. So you could give a woman a ring for example in order to marry her, and she says "yes", and this takes place in front of two witnesses, then the marriage is valid. Same with sex or a document. However a handkerchief would not work. So what does exchange by handkerchief usually mean? It is a kind of barter. I give you a handkerchief and by that I buy from you let's say a violin. That works. The deal is sealed by that, and neither party can go back,
However the Tosphot HaRi''d holds if the handkerchief is worth more than a pruta penny that works to marry the woman. However it looks clear to me the Rambam does not hold that way.

[note 2] It looks like the Rambam would disagree with the Tosphot R''id. To the Rambam there are two kinds of exchange, barter and handkerchief [or any vessel]. You see this in laws of selling perek 5. There is exchange by barter and then in law 5 the Rambam introduces the handkerchief and there says it does not have to be worth a pruta. So the laws of exchange up until then, [e.g. vessel for vessel, but not fruit for fruit] do need to be worth at least a prura penny. And that is because barter would be as a kind of money exchange.

we have lost the idea of repentance.

The modern world is too modern. You can not imagine Eisenhower going into a church and asking to get whipped by the monks for the  deaths of D-day as repentance. But you can understand Henry II doing that for the death of  his vassal who was rebelling.
Why ? Because we have lost the idea of repentance.

So what Allan Bloom saw as a crisis of the enlightenment as opposed to the anti enlightenment as reaching a kind of peak of the wave in American universities--I see something else. The crisis of Western Civilization losing our foundations.


So you can see something important about the whole idea of Israel Salanter in the idea of the Musar movement. That was not just about any old Musar. The major idea was the Musar of the Rishonim.

Robert Hanna and "Forward to Kant"

Robert Hanna has a very nice book explaining in a detailed way the problems with the "Analytic philosophy". [That is what you might hear called "British-American," as opposed to Continental. ] He says more or less "good riddance" and the sooner the better.
He coined the phrase "Forward to Kant".

But I did not see so far his approach to Hegel or what he thinks about the Friesian School of Leonard Nelson that has a different approach to Kant that the well known Neo Kant School of Herman Cohen.

[Also I can not imagine that Michael Huemer would totally dismiss Analytic philosophy altogether since it does have a nice tendency to look at things with logical rigor.
[It occurs to me that Leonard Nelson and Hegel are not as different as all that. The world is rational. It is understandable by reason and built in reason as we see in Physics. And Reason has limits. And as Fries and Leonard Nelson argue that reason itself needs to have a starting point of premises you know but do not have an explanation for. That is non intuitive immediate knowledge. These principles all seem fine to me and I can not understand why make a conflict where there is no conflict?]


You might ask by bother? The reason is that the conflict of Jerusalem with Athens Reason and Revelation was more or less solved during the Middle Ages thus: you need both.