a command to learn the wonders of God which are as much hidden in His creation [Physics]

Every time I say the ten psalms that Rav Nahman pointed out for Tikun HaBrit, I am struck by how many times it is mentioned, "Remember His wonders, his miracles and the laws of His mouth." To me this seems like a command to learn the wonders of God which are as much hidden in His creation [Physics] as there are in the revealed Torah. [This idea is mentioned in psalm 77 a few times and also in psalm 105 --also a few times.] You can see this also in the Rishonim that follow the Obligations of the Hearts and the Rambam.

I realize that Christianity is controversial. That is why I do not comment on it much. My own views are likely to be totally unlike anyone else, so why should I write just to annoy people? My views are too far from traditional Christianity to be acceptable to any Christian. And way too sympathetic towards Jesus to be acceptable to anyone that is against Christianity. 

However, it still seems right to me to mention Rav Avraham Abulafia in this regard. That is at least what he writes חותם של יום ששי the seal of the sixth day referring to the sephera of yesod. [ Also: האירו קשריו] That in addition to the Ari at the end of Sefer Breishit he says more or less the same idea.  

Rav Nahman.

 I was in the Na Nach place again today [Breslov] and they were learning a bit of the book of Rav Natan [Collection of Laws] based on the book of Rav Nahman [Collections of Rav Nahman or the LeM as I call it for short.]It is always possible to find fault and something to criticize in the writings of Rav Nahman. But instead, I try to find some way of understanding what Rav Nahman means or his disciple Rav Natan.

איזהו חכם? מי שמיישב דברי חכמים Who is wise? He who finds a way to answer for the words of the wise. [I forget where I saw this statement in the Gemara]

So without further ado let me say what the issue is. Rav Natan is basing himself on the LeM vol II perek 12. [and LeM I:9]. But he adds a bit that is not in the LeM. He says a person was created to reveal the glory of God. I was wondering about this. And after walking outside a bit, I realized that Rav Natan is basing himself on the idea of the Ari [Isaac Luria] that everything was created to reveal the traits of God. [the seven lower sepherot --including malchut which is also known as the Glory of God.] 

You might look in the writings of Rav Moshe Chaim Lutzato to see this expanded a bit.

[This brings up another issue that I might mention. A fellow I know in who also hands out in Breslov Isaac also found it hard to see what is going on in the books of Rav Nahman. So I explained to him that Rav Nahman is assumed a knowledge of Gemara and Musar and the Ari in what he writes. But he also wants his idea to bring good advice to those that do not follow his ideas. But he is not trying to explain the basic structure of Torah ethics.--the big picture. To get the big picture one has to learn Musar.\

"Native Americans" had wiped out the first civilization in Ohio. [Look up the Hopewell civilization.]

 Careful analysis of the burial mounds in Ohio show the  Indians that were there when encountered by the first European American were not "native Americans." They had wiped out the first groups of homo sapiens that had an extensive civilization on in Ohio. [Look up the Hopewell civilization.]  In any case, I think a deep study of the history of Ohio helps to get a more balanced picture of the American Indians than the overly romanticized versions. This goes back to the basic problem of all news reporting and all history.  History is the art of getting people to become outraged at sad events. They way this is done is not by only by lies, but by reporting half the truth. [And sometimes by lies.]

People playing loose and fast with truth in fact gave me motivation to spend more time on Math and Physics.  If I am going to spend time on study, I would rather that it be something I can depend on its veracity. [I also will try to learn the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach because even in subject like Torah, there is an objective right an wrong. This is because morality is objective. The best defense of this idea you can see in Michel Huemer on why he does not follow Ayn Rand. [And that bit of writing by Huemer is  a masterpiece.] But the idea of objective morality is well defended also in Hegel, and in the Kant Friesian school of Leonard Nelson and Kelley Ross.]

Here is a proof of objective morality by Huemer (Reason, Objectivity, and Goodness): 

(1) There are moral propositions.(2) So they are each either true or false. (by law of excluded middle) (3) And it's not that they're all false. Surely it is true, rather than false, that Josef Stalin's activities were bad. (Although some communists would disagree, we needn't take their view seriously, and moreover, even they would admit some moral judgement, such as, "Stalin was good.")(4) So some moral judgements correspond to reality. (from 2,3, and the correspondence theory of truth).(5) So moral values are part of reality. (which is objectivism)

[Huemer gives also a larger sort of defense that you have to paste together. That is: There are universals. Moral principles are universals as applied to ethics. How do you know universals exist? Here is a proof by Huemer:  ."..yellow is a universal. It is something that lemons, the sun, and school buses, among other things, all have in common. Yellow is 'abstract' in the sense that it is not a particular object with a particular location; you will not bump into yellow, just sitting there by itself, on the street. Nevertheless, yellow certainly exists. Here is an argument for that:

1.	The following statement is true:      (Y) Yellow is a color.
2.	The truth of (Y) requires that yellow exist.
3.	Therefore, yellow exists. Some philosophers (the 'nominalists') say that the only thing multiple particulars have in common is that we apply the same word or idea to them.(54) Here is an argument against that: 4. Yellow is a color, and lemons have it. 5. No word or idea is a color, nor do lemons 'have' words or ideas. 6. Therefore, yellow is not a word or an idea.

I should add that moral principles are what Kant calls Synthetic a priori. They can not be derived by the five senses. That is Hume's law he can not derive an "ought" from an "is". But not all knowledge is derived by the five senses; The idea that we can is "Empiricism--roughly, the idea that all 'informative' knowledge, or knowledge of the mind-independent, language-independent world, must derive from sense perception". Here, is a better-known counter-example to empiricism. {Laurence BonJour } Nothing can be both entirely red and entirely green. How do I know that? Note that the question is not how I came upon the concepts 'red' and 'green', nor how I came to understand this proposition. The question is why, having understood it, I am justified in affirming it, rather than denying it or withholding judgment.

 I have been thinking about Socialism and because of this I have been looking at Trotsky's writings.[Especially his desperate attempts to get a visa from any democratic country in Europe claiming the right of asylum, though he admitted that he would not stop in trying to undermine those very same governments.] Listening to debates with Bryan Caplan, and Huemer.  On one hand, I can imagine that people have never heard of the USSR in the 1930's and mass famines, mass arrests, etc. and the fact that what ever utopia one dreams up, there are always unforeseen consequences.

Still I am trying to understand this issue. Maybe that everyone should have the exact amount of equal stuff is not what motivates the interest in socialism. Maybe it is that people do not want others to have more stuff than anyone else because of some unfair advantage or exploitation. Maybe no one cares if others have more stuff than them if based on the fact that they put in more effort. Fair competition is fine. It is perhaps people's sense of justice that drives the interest in socialism.

Added to this is the American form of government does not seem transferable to other areas of the world. Even if people see the greatness of the USA, they might be aware that just because lots of other countries have American style constitutions does not change a thing about the ipso facto kind of dictatorships they live under.  Maybe people differ in their DNA?

I  saw this a lot in the former USSR. Almost everywhere I went and asked people how were things during the USSR, their answer always was, "Better than now." [Sometimes they would add: "Everyone worked."]

true authentic Torah

 The importance of the Gra and the straight Litvak approach [note 1] came home to me today at the beach. I was resting there in order to gain enough energy to  start back on my walk home. [And I was mulling over the sugia in Gitin page 86 and how it relates to two hazakot against one.] Then I saw some girls sit down to eat ice cream. Then one got up and went over to throw the wrapping away into the trash can. Then another did the same thing, and when the wind blew away what she had thrown out, she retrieved it and threw it away again. At that point, I could not help myself anymore. I went over and said, "You girls are the daughters of a Litvak Torah scholar." And of course they agreed. It could not have been more obvious. I asked where in fact their father had learned Torah?, and it turned out he had learned by one of the great Litvak yeshivas. 

If you see someone who is has midot tovot [good character traits] and is careful about things between man and his fellow man [bein adam lehavero], then it is clear they are Litvaks.  

[However far from Torah as I am, still I can smell the scent  of true authentic Torah a mile away. ]

[note 1] I wish I could explain what this is exactly. The rough picture has a lot to do with Musar, but there is something else about it besides that. A kind of devotion, fear of God, and good traits.] 

The approach that I think is best is Torah with Derech Ertz.[derech ertetz means roughly theway of the earth. Which have a wide spectrum of meaning fro good characer to getting a job. However in pirkei avot it means most often getting a job כך תורה שאין עמה מלאכה גוררת עוון וסופה בטילה וסופו יורש גהינום] [As you see a few times in Pirkei Avot.] I can however agree with the idea of trust in God. But trust in God in the religious world is mixed and confused with the idea of asking secular Jews to pay for the religious to sit all day and pretend to learn Torah.

The constant refrain in the religious world is: "Give us money." [Or the variant: "Give us money because we are  so holy."] That is already pretty much what the Torah says not to do. But often this goes with a large degree of fraud. Pretense and holy talk of how they are trusting in God.

This is typical primate behavior of using what every advantage or tactic one can in order to get on top. The religious world has found the best tactic is fraud.

[Of course, I do not mean to include the great Litvak yeshivot like Ponovitch or its off shoots-- where in fact people learn "Lishma"[for its wn sake and not for money or influence]. Nor do they pretend to learn Torah, but rather learn in truth. Also, I ought to add for praise the two great yeshivot I went to,- Shar Yashuv and Mir in NY. There is no question that there people were in fact learning Torah for its own sake. Rather, it is the general religious world that something is terribly "off", or plain deception.  [And no offence intended towards the path of Rav Nachman. Though people may abuse this approach, still I  found his advice very helpful  and I do not think he could be included in the excommunication of the Gra. You can see this if you see the original letters of the letters of excommunication.

[And while I am at it I should add that I do not think the the excommunication of the Gra should be ignored, To be it seems like a valid halachic category. Once the Gra signed in it, it became legally valid. Even of one does not agree with it or thinks it  was mistaken. That does not take away the legal force of a "herem" which is a valid legal category.]