I do not see that a worm hole could get any where in this universe --any faster than one could go by regular space--since space seems to be almost flat. The only questions that I wonder about are the branes in String Theory which fill space.

 I do not see that a worm hole could get any where in this universe --any faster than one could go by regular space--since space seems to be almost flat. The only questions that I wonder about  are the branes in String Theory which fill space. [You need branes for the ends of open strings to hold onto]. Also there are the sort of extra folded up dimensions in String Theory. What I am wondering about is if these go anywhere? {String Theory seems the best thing out there in terms of understanding the basic nature of pace and time.}

Another thing that I can see could be helpful in getting around in this universe is a black hole. What I means is that black holes carry around space, and that is what makes the powerful emitters [sometimes]. [Cygnus X-1 is like that. It is powerful emitter of X-rays--that mass comes from its partner. It was a binary system at first.]] I mean inside nothing can leave. But there are black holes that carry around space. And when space is being carried around there is no upper limit about the speed of light. Since it is just space, not matter. So anything attached to space when space is moving around can go at any speed since from its point of view, it is just standing still. It is space that is moving. 

learning every chapter ten times.

 Rav Freifeld the founder of Shar Yashuv used to emphasize learning every chapter ten times. And  when we were doing Ketuboth and Hulin this created for me a certain degree of tension.--For I wanted to "make progress." I think after a few years have passed, I can now see his point. And thus I would even like to share his idea with the world, that one never needs to give up if he or she encounters something hard to understand in his studies. Even after doing one chapter, one still does not understand. What I suggest is doing that chapter 10 times and then going on. [Or going back to the previous chapters if one is inclined at that point to do review.] 

I had a sort of conflict between bekiut and iyun [fast learning and in depth learning]. For that reason I decided on a system of repeat every paragraph But when it comes to some subjects like physics I find the idea of review ten times of each chapter to be the best.]

 Once I saw the operating room in Uman [Ukraine] and I swore to myself that I would never allow myself to be there. As maters turned out later,- I had been injured --the dogs in Sofia Park attacked me one night and I broke my right foot in three different places. I was brought to the local hospital and the doctors and nurses did a better job with much more dedication and efforts than I could ever have received in the West.  The whole episode was a  surprise. I was brought to the hospital and given a bed and never once asked about payment or insurance. Rather the opposite. The very first night [when the incident happened] they ran a whole battery of tests --blood tests, etc. And then I was given a bed and food, and never once was payment ever brought up. The operation that was a few days later certainly saved my life, as I need to walk to keep my metabolism going at a steady rate.  However, I did notice that a lot of the great people I met in the Ukraine had been part of the previous Soviet apparatus. -Or trained under it. [What ever the reason for it, I found a great number of people in the Ukraine that were  kind hearted  to a degree which was astounding. But there were plenty of people that were the exact opposite. The criminal others were restrained during the time of the USSR. But once that fear began to dissipate, at lot of the old criminal elements in the Ukraine began to raise their heads at alarming rates.

[My impression is that I can see that the type of system that fits to USA is not the same sort of system that can find in that area of the world. Even to the degree that I can say that because of the differences between people, the type of system of the USSR worked there. But the efforts of communists to try to overthrow the government of the USA was and is a terrible mistake. The same kind of system should be not  be thought to work uniformly anywhere.  Just the opposite. The system of government of the USAI see I highly superior. If the issue is exploitation of workers, it is now the welfare system in the USA that exploits the workers to the advantage of the supposedly professional victims--people that make a living out of being victims

It is not out of communism that conern arose for the poor and the working class, but rather from Torah valuesas you can see in Prince Albert, the consort of Queen Eliabeth ,The nobility itself. from principles based on Torah.

But the idea that everything would have been nice and peachy in the USSR without Communism is absurd. There is a DNA tendency towards criminality that needed Russian rule to tame. The DNA there is totally different from Angle Saxon DNA. It tends very much towards violence.

Gitin page 63, side B

 Gitin. I can see the difficulty in understanding the argument between Rashi and the Rambam in Gitin page 63, side B. However Rav Shach offers an answer to this great problem that I fail to see really answers it. One says to to two  people "write a get and give it to a messenger." The Gemara wonders if this means to write once,- or at least once. To the Rambam this refers to a case that the get [divorce] was found to be null. To Rashi the case is when the get [divorce] was lost. To Rav Shach the argument depends on the question if writing the get [divorce] requires being a messenger or simply command of the husband.

What Rav Shach means is: The difference is this: If writing the get [divorce] requires to be a messenger from the husband, then we can understand that after he has written a get [divorce] and it got lot it might be a doubt if he has fulfilled his mission. this might be the doubt in the Gemara on page 63 maybe the messenger-ship was filled since he wrote the get as commanded. this is how Rav Shach explains Rashi that holds the doubt of the gemara is  if it was lost. but if simply found to be null, then of course he can write another. However even if we say that the Rambam holds  the writing does not require messenger-ship rather only a command of the husband, still I can see that there is the exact same doubt about how far his command extends--to write it just once or at least once. Like a drill sergeant would say, "I told you to get this done. I did not say to TRY to get it done!!!".  o to say the argument between Rashi and the Rambam does not seem to depend on the question of if the get requires "messenger-ship or only a command."

[The basic issue in  Gitin is this: One says to two to write a get and give it to a messenger. The Gemara asks, "Does he mean to write it once only, or to write it until it gets done?" This is left as a doubt. The Rambam says the question is referring to a case when  the get was found to be null To Rashi, the issue is if the get was lost--but if found null obviously one could write another"]

Even a parakeet can learn to speak the right words of love and peace.

 Even a parakeet can learn to speak the right words of love and peace. All the more so demons and devils. No wonder Rav Nahman [of Breslov] warned us about Torah scholars that are demons. Even demons can learn how to talk the talk and walk the walk. So what I suggest is to learn Torah in Litvack yeshiva where there is no pretense of holiness. There is simply the idea to learn and keep Torah with nothing added nor subtracted. No one pretends to be a "tzadik"

Z30 D minor 

Friesian school [based on Kant, Fries, Nelson]

 The approach of the Friesian school [based on Kant, Fries, Nelson]. Fries had an important insight into the need for immediate non intuitive knowledge [or what I would prefer to say that reason recognizes universals--not that  it knows them. ] As you can imagine Kant is very great but his Copernican revolution leaves a lot to be desired. That we know synthetic a priori because we have the categories implanted in our minds  (space and time and causality). That is in simple language: "I know it because I know it."  Or as mothers tell their children, "Why? Because I said SO!"    

So as Kelley Ross points out --there is a regress of reasons. Somewhere where reason has to 

So Kelley Ross found a ready made system that needed a bit bringing down to earth to show its great implications as he does in his web site the Friesian.

So why was all this ignored?  Academic philosophy since then has gone off into all sorts of odd directions. The reason for this is simple--people in professional philosophy are very smart. And they do a lot of reading. This enters them into the strange worlds. So they lose their common sense. And nothing is so important in philosophy as common sense.

[I should add that there is a certain degree of distain for Hegel in the Friesian school which I can not share. But I only read the Logic part of his encyclopedia and Mc Taggart and Cunningham's PhD thesis which gave me a very positive idea of what Hegel is all about. [Neo Platonism while taking Kant into consideration --i.e. how Kant modifies the Neo Platonic approach.] But to my mind, the Kelley Ross Fries approach is a modification of Plato as Dr Ross says himself about Socratic ignorance [we know what we do not know that we know] and Platonic knowledge.