Scientism is the faith that only what science can measure in a test tube can be real. But this seems to be highly non scientific. For science seeks to know what we do not know; not to limit what can be known. 

But how can areas beyond what can be tested by a test tube or by pure reason be known? Thus to answer this question I had to turn to Immediate Non Intuitive Knowledge (of the the Kant-Friesian School of Kelley Ross). That means knowledge that is not dependent on the senses nor on pure reason.

And this makes a lot of sense to me because I am sorry to have to admit it but it makes sense to me because of my own personal experience of faith.  So I realize that personal experience is no proof of anything, still I have to explain why I find this school of thought to be so compelling. 

And along with this I can also believe that mystics like Rav Avraham Abulafia from the Middle Ages-had true mystic vision. [ Rav Abulafia had a lot of ideas that are in absolute contradiction to what the religious world thinks. And I admit I  was totally shocked when I first read his ideas in manuscript form in 1992.[This was after I had undergone difficult traumatic times in my life-so I might have been more receptive to his new approach. You might say I was no longer as sure of my ideas as I hade been before that.]  

But then how does one tell who has true vision?  For this I think you need the mediaeval formula of Faith with Reason. That is Faith may go beyond Reason but Reason still determines what is reasonable. 

So the question is how to strike a true balance between reason and faith. The problem is one without the other leads to lunacy. Thus the Litvak Yeshiva approach based on the Gra I think must be thought of as the true approach.   

mysticism based on the Zohar

 The problem with mysticism based on the Zohar is the phrase עם כל דא "even though".[עם כל דא "  is used all the time in the Zohar.]  I mean to say that the Zohar was written during the Middle Ages after that phrase עם כל זה [translated in Aramaic  עם כל דא] was invented by the Ibn Tibon family. Before then one said "even though" by אף על פי or  אף על גב. [Rav Yakov Emden in fact noticed the problem. He concluded that some parts of the Zohar were based on mystic writings that had come before that time, but a lot of it was not from R Shimon ben Yochai.

So while I have a lot of respect for the great mystics like Rav Avraham Abulafia and Rav Isaac Luria,, I do not see the Zohar as having validity at all.

If you think of a woman that sees blood once and then again between the 8th and 18th day as a Zava [who requires seven clean days] as opposed to s regular woman who sees for few days and then not again until after 30 days, then can an ocean purify her? Well this is an argument between the tenaim [sages of the Mishna].

Do you consider her as a zava? That is so to most Rishonim, but not to the Rambam who thinks there is a continuous cycle of  18. Once any girls sees even one time, the 18 cycle begins. And so any woman that sees even once might be a small zava. Then if she see three days she is a great zava who needs a flowing spring. Do rivers fed from springs count as springs? This seems to me from what I recall to be an argument between the Raavad and Rambam. [That is an argument as to the status of most rivers. To the mishna only four in Israel are not valid but all other rivers have the status of a spring.

[But if you go with most Rishonim including the Raavad most women that see blood are only nidot, not zavot so any body of natural water is Ok, e.g.,  a sea or river  

[I know I am being short here. So just for information's sake: In the book of Leviticus you see a difference between a woman who sees blood and a woman who sees blood "not in her time". The one that sees not in her time needs "living waters" to get pure. That is a spring. So what is ""Not in her time". Well the simple idea would be seeing her regular time up to seven days. That is if she sees one day or two or three etc up until seven, she simply goes into a sea or river after the seventh day [or even during the seventh day if she has already stopped seeing.] But if she sees again on three consecutive days after the seventh day, then that is "not in her time". She needs then to count seven clean days and go into a spring [or river fed from springs] and bring a sacrifice [once there will be a Temple]

 To learn fast [saying the words and going on] or slow [with review]? I had seen the fast way in the Musar book אורחות צדיקים Ways of the Righteous and also in some book [בניין עולם] in Shar Yashuv. [Note1] But in Shar Yashuv itself there was [as in all yeshivot based on the Gra] an emphasis on slow painstaking review.

[There was recommended to review everything you learn ten times] 

At the time, I came up with a sort of middle path or review twice. But over the years, I have found there are places where the fast sort of learning seems to work best--I mean absolutely fast. And there are places where review is the only thing that works. 

The places where fast is the best is where review does not seem to work at all. I am sorry to admit it, but an example is higher mathematics. Places like that where review does nothing (since it is like a vertical structure), there I need to get the whole picture before I can understand even the slightest detail.

Places where review seems best are in Tosphot or books of Rav Chaim of Brisk or Rav Shach. These are places that are deep and profound, but do not depend on extensive knowledge elsewhere. That is to say--they make sense in their own place--if you spend enough time on them.

The basic way that one can resolve the approach of Jacob Fries with Hegel is that of dynamics.

In some Rishonim like Ibn Pakuda [חובות הלבבות], Binyamin the Doctor [author of מעלות המידות] and the Rambam we find an emphasis on Physics and Meta-Physics. [And they mean these subjects as understood by the ancient Greeks as the Rambam states openly in the Introduction to the Guide.] So what is included in these? I think Physics is clear. But Metaphysics is less clear. Certainly as the Rishonim understood these include Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus. But what of later authors? I suggest Kant, Hegel, Leonard Nelson.

 [I know that there is an argument between the Kant Fries School of Leonard Nelson and Hegel, and I have no resolution to this problem. Both schools of thought have some important points.]

The basic way that one can resolve the approach of Jacob Fries with Hegel is that of dynamics. While to Fries there is an exact limit to reason that never change, and to Hegel there is no such limit, one can see that this limit can expand. [It can be dynamic. It moves.] 

 The problem with social justice theories is when implemented result in their exact opposite. The death toll of communist's regimes in the 20th century go above 100 million..[just counting the USSR and China. That ought to put some kind of damper on the enthusiasm these theories. The proof is in the pudding.  And no matter how well thought out a theory is, if it predicts results [prosperity and peace for all] -that turn out to be contrary to its predictions--that theory is false.

But this applies to religious delusions also. The allure of the religious world is their claim of peace and justice for all which is the opposite of the truth. 

The further one gets into areas of numinous content [powerful spiritual presence] like music, art, justice, spiritual values, the less concepts of pure reason are applicable. See Kant (and the Kant-Friesian School). The issue is this there is analytic knowledge which is true by definitions; and synthetic knowledge e.g. there is a continent between Asia and Europe.. There is also a priori knowledge (known, but not by the senses) and a posteriori knowledge known by observation . So can a priori synthetic knowledge  exist? Kant shows how, but only within a certain limit. That limit is "the conditions of possible experience".So when people try to show by pure reason principles things are can not be observed by the five senses and not within the area of possible experience, then you know they are getting into an area where reason not only is invalid,  but is also destructive.]  

 It is not known if the Gra agreed with the establishment of an institution "yeshiva" as independent from the local Rav and community. {That is something like a corporation.] For the most part, all you had was the local place where people prayed in the morning and then who ever wanted to just stayed and learned there during the day.

When Rav Chaim of Voloshin asked the Gra about starting such an independent institution as a yeshiva the Gra did not answer at first. Then there are several accounts. Some say that he agreed in the end. Others say he never agreed.

To me this shows a basic ambiguity about the whole issue. Certainly, Torah was never meant to be a means to get a kollel pay check. On the other hand, I had been part of two very great Litvak yeshivot Shar Yashuv and the Mir in NY.   In Shar Yashuv I learned about the great importance of reviewing everything you learn ten times.

So it is hard to know. Maybe the connection between Torah and Money nowadays has just gotten too out of hand.

[I do not know if it matters to others, but perhaps a bit of personal information might be helpful. I had a great time in Shar Yashuv and learned from Naphtali Yeager about the infinite depths of Tosphot. But after that I went to the Mir where the learning was more along the lines of Rav Haim of Brisk. ]