The religious world is based patrician against plebian the upper class superior beings against the common folk.

The religious world  is based patrician against plebian the upper class superior beings against the common folk. But it is in the interest of the patrician to hide this dynamic.     The problem with the religious is that they imagine that they are keeping Torah. The addition of endless rituals have of course, no root in Jewish Law. But more so, two of the major requirements of Torah are Monotheism which means belief in God alone, not the endless parade of phony "tzadikim". Another is Midot Tovot [good character]which means to be a mensch, not a backbiter. Not to be   forcing secular Jews to pay for their kollels against their will. They can make this happen by the form of government in Israel, but that does not mean secular Jews give willingly. And that comes under the category of "Hamas" [Yes, it is the same word] which means to force someone to give you money against their will. For example, to take something from someone and then offer to pay for it.   

something wrong with academia

 One reason to go with the Friesian school is this: imagine you are in an algebra class in high school. There is a problem on the blackboard that you are sure you have the right answer to. But right before you raise your arm to get called on, the smartest kid in the class gets called on before you, and gives a different answer. And then the teacher calls on you to give your answer. Are you so sure now? You might be a little hesitant to offer your answer.  ["The dog ate my homework."] After all that smart kid so far has gotten straight A's on every algebra test,

This is somewhat parallel. You might think Hegel the right answer. But Karl Gauss [the smart kid in the class ] raises his hand and says "Jacob Fries is the right approach." Then a hundred years goes by and the same question comes up. You think Husserl or Marx is the right answer. Then again the smartest kid in the class, David Hilbert, again raises his hand and says ''Leonard Nelson  --the founder of the Neo Friesian school has the right approach. so why are the smart kids ignored in academia,--Gauss and David Hilbert? It must be that there is something  wrong with academia

[ Nelson has still not been translated to English, but as an intro to his thought you might learn Plato and Kant. ]

I found out about Nelson on the web site of Kelley Ross when I was looking up Spinoza and saw the amazing analysis on Spinoza there. [At the time I had some questions on Spinoza, and had also seen Leibniz's critique on Spinoza]. One question of my own  was this. "Geometry or any exact science does not start with far fetched axioms. Take an example geometry. One axion is this: the shortest distance between two points is  a straight line. Almost too obvious to be stated.  To start with 'There only one substance in the universe' (as Spinoza does) sounds like something that needs to be proved, not taken a an axiom. "

Since the death of my son Izhak, I have accepted on myself to be doing four sessions in learning in my hope that they will go for his credit in Gan Eden where I hope and pray he is. But my original idea of doing lot of review does not seem to work in the sessions in math and physics. [I started this because Izhak held strongly of the idea of learning in depth (limud beiyun)]. For me it seems to work better to go one chapter forward, and then review to the beginning. Then one more chapter forward, and then again review to the very beginning. The only areas where review on that same chapter or section  works for me is in Tosphot or Rav Chaim of Brisk or the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach.

Leviticus 18 and 20 and in the book of Numbers, seeing blood means a woman can not sleep with her husband for 7 days.

[Introduction- the law as you can read in the Bible is that seeing blood means a woman can not sleep with her husband for 7 days. Leviticus 18 and 20 and in the book of Numbers. On the night after the7th day she dips into a river. But the custom became that all women think of themselves as  a woman who sees blood for more than 7 days. If that would be in fact the case, then she would need 7 clean days, and then go to a river. What I am suggesting  is that women ought to get back to the law of the Torah--that is that 7 days is enough. That means whether she sees one day or 2 or three or even 7 full days, she still goes to the sea or river on the night after the 7th day and that is that.]  

Seven days of nida seems to me to be enough. A woman  sees blood one day or two  or even seven straight days, that should count for the seven days of nida. She dips in a river after the 7th day at night and that is enough.   Ziva is just not prevalent [seeing blood for eight days or more], and even a straight prohibition from the words of the scribes does not apply unless the reason it was made is common place.--much less a custom that few people keep anymore. It is not that I am looking to be lenient. There are thing I think people should be strict in like going into a river or sea. The "mikve" nowadays is a solid block of concrete and thus a "vessel" and therefore not kosher. [I.e. it can be lifted out of the ground in one piece.]

reason and faith

Reason and faith, In the Middle Ages, "reason" meant Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, and a few Muslim Philosophers. After the Renaissance, Reason  meant more than study of Aristotle. But what? Two approaches began. The Enlightenment  and the Anti Enlightenment [Gulliver's travels at Laputa],\

 So I have done a bit of sifting out what I think is not so great. In STEM fields I have no argument except my wish that pseudo sciences [like psychology] would be weeded out, In Philosophy, I go with Kant and in particular that school of thought of Leonard Nelson that is a sort of modification on Kant. [But I am not so dismissive  of Hegel.]

[ I am no expert, but I can point out that John Searle said about 20th century philosophy "It is obviously false"] [He was clearly referring to existentialism  and the Frankfurt neo Marxists, If one wishes to invest the time to go into this he or he might look at the lectures of James Lindsay]

the statement of the Gra that, "To the degree that one lacks any knowledge of the seven wisdoms, to that degree he will lack in understanding of Torah a hundred fold more."

In the path of the Gra it is not clear what education ought to include. In the introduction to Euclid  in Hebrew by Baruch of Sckolev [disciple of the Gra] is brought the statement of the Gra that, "To the degree that one lacks any knowledge of the seven wisdoms, to that degree he will lack in understanding of Torah a hundred fold more." But in the Middle Ages "the seven wisdoms" meant the Quadrivium and Trivium [grammar, logic, and rhetoric, while the quadrivium consists of arithmetic, astronomy, music, and geometry],  Rhetoric is the subject of attack in Plato's Georgias and the Ion. Georgias was a famous sophist that prided himself (like  all the sophists] of being able to convince people of anything even falsehoods. Socrates does not like that. The Gra certainly would not hold by learning that. Rather this seems to refers to the 6 books of Aristotle, the Organon. During the Middle Ages, many Rishonim held one ought to have a secular education  which would mean what today would be known as STEM fields, Science, Tech, Engineering, Mathematics.[But this would not include pseudo science like psychology]

[In the world of Litvak yeshivot, yeshiva was only for seven years==that is to go through the even basic tractates--one per year. [Three bavot: Bava Kama Bava Metzia Bava Batra and 4 Nashim: gitin kidushin yevamot Ketuboth.] 

tendency to add restrictions

 There is a kind of tendency in the religious world to add tons of restrictions that the Torah does not require and to ignore plenty of prohibitions that the Torah forbids. This, of course, is against the verse in Deuteronomy chap. 4 verse 2 that commands us not to add nor subtract from the commandments. And it is also against the approach of the Gra and the general Litvak world. However,  this tendency has seeped in the Litvak world today. And while I was   in the Mir in NY, I barely noticed this tendency because at that time I was interested in following the stricter opinion about any question in halacha--law.  But after some time, I began to notice this. Of course, there is nothing wrong with taking the strict opinion about any particular law. But the problem is that lots of restrictions are made up out ''of whole cloth'' [as the expression goes].