This problem of self delusion is wide spread in the religious world, but is just the normal state among "mystics. "

What is called mysticism is thought to have great insights into spiritual reality. This is obviously a mistake since it is too mixed up with falsehood.  While I do agree that the Ari and Rav Nahman had great spiritual insights, that has nothing to do with the basic question. A person can have great spiritual insights because of their work and efforts in learning Torah and in separating himself from the vanities of this world. But that has nothing to do with "Mysticism".

Better it is to stay away from the self deluded.  This problem of self delusion is wide spread in the religious world, but is just the normal state among "mystics. "

Delusion of the religious is, "Because we are strict in certain rituals, therefore we are smarter, more moral, and more holy than anyone else." [And the corollary to this axiom is "And thus we are not begging for charity as it seems we do all the time. Rather we are asking for what is justly ours since we uphold the whole world."]

One aspect of this delusion is the idea that the religious are more moral than anyone else. But experience shows this to be false. They seem nice until you ask for a favor (after you have done tons of favors.]) 

[I hope it is clear that I do not mean to cast aspersions on the truly sincere or the great Litvak yeshvot which are far from all these faults. Rather my hope is to warn the naïve about what is all too obvious to those with experience. And in the Torah there is a specific command ""Do not stand by the blood of your neighbor"אל תעמוד על דם רעיך

the greats, Kant, Hegel, Leonard Nelson

 Once John Searle makes it clear that he thinks the whole problem that started "Idealism" in Berkley is a mistake that caused philosophy to sink into the mud for 300 hundred years is a mistake [See5:16 of this video]-a simple mistake in the word "aware".[The idea is that we are only aware of the picture of an object that we have in our mind] [The logical fallacy of ambiguity, aware of an external thing. Aware of an inner thing.] This lends a lot of support to ideas of Huemer that we have direct awareness of what we see and feel. Otherwise you might say that most of us simple people have not the wherewith all mental capacities to understand the deep logic of the philosophers. However I have been aware of this issue for a long time, I still think the greats, Kant, Hegel, Leonard Nelson  still have very important points. And all the more so that there is no evidence to say that Hegel agreed with Berkley at all. Just the opposite. I have always thought that his point is the exact point of Huemer that we have direct awareness of the real world and the mistake of the later philosophers is just misuse of the double meaning of the word awareness.

The Russians had tried Marx and Communism and found it terrible.

 How is it that Marxism is so entrenched the English departments of American universities? The Russians had tried Marx and Communism and found it terrible. Even as freedom was granted to the republics, there was an attempt to keep Communism. The result was the Russian people elected to have Yeltsin and freedom. Clearly those who knew a thing or two about the joys of Socialism decided it was nothing like its promises.

Laws of Peah 2:11 See Rav Shach

 There is an extremely puzzling Rambam that I have no idea how to deal with. It is this statement "If he gives most of the peah to the poor then that part is not obligated in truma and maasar." [Truma is what is given to priests. Maasar is the tithe given to Levites]

I would like to show what is hard to see in this. Normally if one has a field he must leave 1/60 for the poor at the edge. [That is he must leave of what is standing.] But lets say he reaps the whole field. Then he gives the same amount to the poor [from the reaped sheaves even though he was supposed to give from the standing grain]. The Rambam brings this law and then adds this phrase, "If he gives most of the field as peah, that which he gives is not obligated in trumah and maasar.]"

Obviously he can give the whole field as peah except for the first stalk that he cuts. He cuts the stalk and then automatically he is required to give a "edge" peah of the field. [And that edge is not obligated in Trumah nor Maasar], So what is this "most". Why not just "all except that stalk"?

From what I can tell the things that are worthwhile are STEM [Science, Tech, Engineering, Mathematics.] Gemara and Tosphot.

 It seems to me that in my parents home I developed a desire for learning. Part of that was because of my love for my dad [not that he was learning all the time, but rather because of his work in STEM] and also I think this was i response to school where I wanted to do well. It seems to me that this has stayed with me.. I can see this might not be inside every person that might not be driven to  learn and learn well. This must be an acquired taste. Thus I think that my experience of tremendous admiration for my dad and the sorts of public schools I went to were unique. 

I can see that not everyone has a drive for learning. And certainly I did not either have any kind of drive in this direction except for the set of circumstances I was born into--great parents and great schools and teachers.

To make it clear what I am saying is just a repeat of Aristotle ""Virtue is habit." One ought to accustom himself to learn so that eventually one gets to the point that if a whole day goes by without learning, one feels empty. Almost as if the whole day was a waste.  

But furthermore I would like to suggest that there are subjects that are worthwhile learning and others that are destructive to one's mind. \But how can one know what is worthwhile spending time a effort on and on the contrary what is not just a waste of time but destructive before one has actually learned? 

I guess one must depend on "authority." Or common sense.

From what I can tell the things that are worthwhile are STEM [Science, Tech, Engineering, Mathematics.] Gemara and Tosphot. 

[Though some rishonim (mediaeval authorities)emphasize Metaphysics it is hard to know what is worthwhile to look at in that area.] The problem in philosophy is every professor disagrees with every other professor. You have nothing like that in math where most teachers agree that 2 +2 =4. Philosophy is nothing like that where if one does not downgrade everyone else, then one gets zero credit. 

And as far as public schools are concerned, there is no question that my parents would have kept me from them nowadays as highly destructive.  

 z35 E flat Major  z35 nwc

Music File z45

 z45 D minor midi     z45 in nwc format