By combining these two systems even a block of wood could become a rocket scientist.

 I believe lots of people would learn Physics and Mathematics if only they knew how. This would obviously destroy the the pseudo sciences that fill the grievance studies departments of universities.

People that could learn real knowledge would run away from what they intuitively know is false.

So then how could people learn these subjects that are hard? By Iyun and bekiut. By fast learning half of the time--saying the words of the text, and going on. The other half of the time by intense review. To say over each paragraph or chapter that one learns ten times.  By combining these two systems, even a block of wood could become a rocket scientist.

But this takes time. It means every day to spend time on this--even a short amount of time. But one must be consistent to do this every day over years. Then eventually one will understand.

The Social Studies departments and so called Humanities are failures and should be shuddered up.

 The government in the USA has always bounced back and forth around a middle point. It tends towards the middle. Thus during the Civil War it went from Jeffersonian  to Federal Authority of Hamiltonian.

Thus it sees to me to be the case today. To paint it as radical communism or Right seems to be inaccurate,.

This is characteristic of the England where the powers of king or lords went back and forth with the people as the arbitrators. This is unlike systems where only the rule of the emperor mattered. I.e. this type of balanced system is characteristic of Anglo Saxon DNA.

So the question is can a system born from English DNA absorb foreign DNA? Or how much is too much? My grandparents came over from the Old Country at a time when the USA I think was free--not "socialist". Would they come over now? I am not sure. Certainly they would never have let my parents or me in a public school with the garbage they are teaching nowadays.

So while all these  are important issues and questions that are unresolved, I think one thing is clear. Allan Bloom was right. {Closing of the American Mind.} The Social Studies departments and so called Humanities are failures and should be shuddered up.

 The path of the Gra is learning "beiyun" (in depth). To me it seems clear that learning in depth and review are related. Thus I heard in Shar Yashuv the importance of reviewing every chapter ten times.

And I took this advice with me when I went to the Mir in NY. [Doing each Tosphot that many times I found bogged me down, so I settled on doing each Tosphot twice, and the Pnei Yehoshua (a commentary on the Gemara ) ten or more times. The Maharsha I forget how many times I would review it.]

And I believe that this can be very helpful when it comes to doing Math and Physics also. However because of my late start in math and Physics, I decided to do the fast sort of learning [saying the words and going on] until I could get up to speed with the current issues in Physics and Mathematics. [String Theory, and the vast array of subjects coming after Algebraic Topology.]

My son, Izhak, definitely held with learning beiyun [in depth], and the way I see this is that in depth is not different from fast learning except in the amount of review.

 Before Kant, John Locke and Hume thought pure reason can only know analytic ideas--things that are contained in the definitions. [To the empiricists the only real knowledge is what can be verified by observation. ] Kant expanded the areas of what can be known.  He said reason can know synthetic a priori-[i.e. universals, like causality]-but only within the conditions of possibity of experience. Jacob Fries expanded that further. To Fries, God, and the soul are areas where knowledge is possible, but not by reason, rather by a sort of knowledge that is not reason nor based on sense perception.

[I think that both Kant and the Friesian School of Kelley Ross have tremendous points, but I can not tell if the truth is only in one camp or the other.

Rav Nahman in the Le/M [I think in the left out portions that were later added back in] says when God created the world the midot like wisdom would expand indefinitely. Then God set a limit to them. 

Rav Nahman wrote this specifically about wisdom [Reason]. This goes along with Jacob Fries that we have knowledge beyond conditions of possibility of experience [i.e. Faith.] but this knowledge is not by reason. 

 The Morality Quotient.  In secular society it is thought that the Bell Curve is invalid. When people are stupid, that is thought to have nothing to do with violence. To some degree this is correct. There is also the Morality Curve. Someone can be dumb, but highly moral. And that morality can even bring one to higher intelligence than even natural IQ. "Fear of God is the beginning of Wisdom" [Proverbs]

This you can see in many very intelligent women that after they get divorced spend the rest of their lives trying to hurt their ex husbands. They ate blissfully uncaring the traumatic effect this has on their children whom they ruin by their constant lashon hara [slander.] They could not care less if they ruin their children --just as long as they get to hurt their ex-husbands.

 Where Hegel disagrees with Jacob Fries is in the area beyond science. That is--the area beyond what can be tested experimentally and verified in the laboratory. The question is metaphysics.  How to get to it? [How to get to an area that is liable to be tested experimentally?] [Both Hegel and Fries agree that it is possible to get to.] To Fries one can get to this area by means of immediate non-intuitive knowledge. A sort of knowledge that does not depend on reason nor on sense perception. To Hegel, one gets to this area of knowledge by reason itself.

[To Kant only also areas beyond  experiment are available  to human knowledge, bur only those within the conditions of possiblility of experience. []Eg., God the soul, morality, etc.] But to Kant and Fries even areas beyond the conditions of possible experience are open. To Fries that is by immediate non intuitive knowledge. To Hegel it is by Reason itself. 

From where do you see this. From Hegel's own idea of what the Phenomenology is about. It is a Wissenschaft a science--not in the sense of natural science but science of what is beyond that. 

 You do not really know what is going on in the souls of other men. What do people gain by learning Torah in the kollel system? Sex--(i.e. a shiduch), money as their salary for learning Torah, power over others when what they want they claim is the authority of the Torah. Who is to say that they do not want these these things? Maybe they do. And if they do then that is Torah shelo lishma, Torah not for its own sake. And on Torah  not for  own sake we learn יערוף כמטר לקחי לשון הריגה "My teaching flows like rain" Flows is the same verb root as "kills". I.e., my teaching kills those who are not worthy. That means not only those that learn Torah not for its own sake but also those that listen to them.