What does it mean to be a man?
Today the women want a wussy after they have had their fun. Some Beta Male to pick up the slack in their 30's after they spent their 20's having fun with the guys. They want a slave.
The most stupid thing a man can do is marry a woman that has a child.

Today no one knows what it means to be  a man because it is really a combination of talents. One is when the chips are not down. When civilization is going according to plan. Then it is the skills one needs in everyday life. To have an honest kosher vocation. But when the chips are down, to know what to do, and to be prepared for it.



To know what to do when the chips are down, To be able to work together in a team.  To know who the enemy is. To be able to identify the frauds and charlatans.

"Anything that is a must see, must try, must read, should almost certainly be avoided, especially if it is popular.”

Jim Rogers' Keys to Success (taken from the titles and sub headings of each chapter in his latest book, A Gift to My Children):

1. Do not let others do your thinking for you

2. Focus on what you like

3. Good habits for life; investing

4. Common sense? Not so common

5. Attention to details is what separates success from failure

6. Let the world be a part of your perspective

7. Learn philosophy &; learn to think

8. Learn history

9. Learn languages 

10. Understand your weaknesses & acknowledge your mistakes

11. Recognize change ; embrace it

12. Look to the future

13. “Lady Luck smiles on those who continue their efforts”

14. Remember that nothing is really new

15. Know when not to do anything

16. Pay attention to what everybody else neglects

17. If anybody laughs at your idea view it as a sign of potential success

Most powerful exercise from the book:

“Reflect on situations where conventional wisdom and custom turned out to be wrong. Take the time to find out what actually happened.”

Favorite Quotes:

“Anything that is a must see, must try, must read, should almost certainly be avoided, especially if it is popular.”

“Never act upon wishful thinking. Act without checking the facts, and chances are that you will be swept away along with the mob.”

“Learn to stay calm especially in times of pressure or turmoil. You will make much better decisions.”

“Do not get married until you are at least 28 and know a bit more about yourself and the world.”

“Learn to do as much arithmetic and figures as possible in your head.”

Excerpt from a book review by Miguel Barbosa, Seeking Alpha.

survival

   Ranger Handbook  37 survival books  fish hooks  character-traits-and-skills-are-hard-find-during-crisis   

D=8 the lattice

Is there a connection between the result that in D=8 the lattice gives the best packing and the fact that D=8 gives the right number of fermions and gives the right triviality relation between a vector and two spinors?

For the general public let me just expand a drop. The lattice gives the best packing in D=8 [E(8)]. And  also there are other important things about D=8. We get the right relationships between vector particles and spinors. We get the right number of fermions.


And plus that E(8) is reducible to d=3 and that is nice for a 3d world.



See this paragraph written by Warren Siegel:



From Warren Siegel:


However, these spinors can have the usual commutation relations and conformal weights only for D=8. This is significant for two reasons: (1) D=8 is the number of physical (i.e., transverse) fermions for the RNS superstring, and (2) SO(8) is the only simple Lie group with the property of “triality”, a symmetry between the vector and two spinor representations. In fact, if we start out by defining the basis for one of the spinors with the same a we used above to define the vector, and rewrite the above a’s for the vector and other spinor in terms of that new basis, we see that we have just permuted the 3 a’s. [Fields pg 776]

Bava Kama 19b and the Rambam

Just a fast introduction. The Rambam about that page of the Gemara is hard to understand That is he does not fit the Gemara at all. What I had to do was to suggest the Rambam had a different version.
 But furthermore I think there is this coming conclusion that is partly based on my own reading of the Rambam. That is I am suggesting anyway that this halacha goes along with Rabbi Nathan on page 53 that- "This and that causes the damage, then each pays a half." And what seems to me to be clear in any case no matter why the Rambam says what he says, but at least we do know he does not mention the chicken flying. And that is the sole situation when the Gemara says it is חצי נזק. This much we know. Furthermore we know the Rambam holds with Rabbi Nathan. So regardless of what I wrote we can conclude this chicken with the string is a case of full נזק. And thus if the chicken and the string each have an owner then each pays a half. And if it is a case of flying, then the largest amount possible is half, so there too each pays a half, but it comes out to be that each pays a fourth. And now we know why the Rambam did not write the law about the flying chicken. Because it can be easily understood from the law he did write.

_______________________________________________________________________________


Just a fast introduction. The רמב''ם about that page of the גמרא is hard to understand That is he does not fit the Gemara at all. What I had to do was to suggest the רמב''ם had a different version.
 But furthermore I think there is this coming conclusion that is partly based on my own reading of the רמב''ם. That is I am suggesting anyway that this הלכה goes along with רבי נתן on page נ''ג that זה וזה גורם   the נזק then  each pays a חצי. And what seems to me to be clear in any case no matter why the רמב''ם says what he says. But at least we do know he does not mention the chicken flying. And that is the sole situation when the גמרא says it is חצי נזק. This much we know. Furthermore we know the רמב''ם holds with רבי נתן. So regardless of what I wrote, we can conclude this chicken with the חוט is a case of full נזק. And thus if the chicken and the חוט each have an owner, then each pays a half. And if it is a case of flying, then the largest amount possible is half, so there too each pays a half; but comes out to be that each pays a fourth. And now we know why the רמב''ם did not write the law about the flying chicken. Because it can be easily understood from the law he did write.

 כלומר אני מציע בכל מקרה הלכה זו הולכת יחד עם רבי נתן בעמוד נ''ג כי זה וזה גורם נזק שלם, כל אחד משלם חצי. ומה נראה לי להיות ברור בכל מקרה לא משנה מדוע רמב''ם אומר את מה שהוא אומר. אבל לפחות אנחנו יודעים שהוא אינו מזכיר את עפיפת העוף. וזה המצב היחיד שהגמרא אמרה שהיא חצי נזק. זה ידוע לנו. יתר על כן אנו יודעים שהרמב''ם מחזיק עם רבי נתן. אז  אנו יכולים להסיק עוף זה עם חוט הוא מקרה של נזק מלא. וכך אם העוף ואת החוט אחד יש להם בעלים אז כל אחד משלם חצי. ואם זה מקרה של טיסה, הסכום הגדול היותר האפשרי הוא חצי, אז גם שם כל אחד משלם חצי, אבל זה יוצא להיות שכל אחד משלם רבע. ועכשיו אנחנו יודעים מדוע הרמב''ם לא כתב את החוק על עוף מעופף. כי זה יכול בקלות להיות מובן מהחוק שהוא כן  כתב.









Ideas in Shas It also seems to me to add an important point in this book. That is the Rambam does not mention flying in Bava Kama 19b.   My thesis is this: The Rambam held flying is a difference [an unusual type of damage as in "half damages of pebbles"]  and thus can only be obligated 1/2 damages. Therefore if there are two owners they both pay at the most 1/2/ If it is not flying, they both pay 1/2 each to get to full damages.

_________________________________________________


It also seems to me to add an important point. That is the רמב''ם does not mention flying in בבא קמא י''ט ע''ב.   My thesis is this: The רמב''ם held flying is a שינוי  כחצי נזק צרורות  and thus can only be obligated חצי נזק. Therefore if there are two owners they both pay ביחד at the most חצי.  If it is not flying, they both pay חצי each to get to נזק שלם.

גם נראה לי להוסיף נקודה חשובה.  הרמב''ם אינו מזכיר מצב שהתרנגול עף בבבא קמא י''ט ע''ב. התזה שלי היא זו:  לרמב''ם עפיפה נערכת  כשינוי (היינו כחצי נזק צרורות) ולכן יכולים להיות מחויבים רק חצי נזק. לכן אם יש שני בעלים אחד לתרנגול ואחד לחוט, שניהם מחוייבים לשלם ביחד לכל היותר חצי. אם התרנגול לא עף, שניהם מחוייבים לשלם כל אחד חצי להגיע לנזק שלם.

So while it is admirable the attempt of Rabbi Avigdor Miller to defend Torah, still his books are not good arguments

World view issues and ethics are hard subjects to address.  The best books that deal with these as far as I can tell are from the Middle Ages. That is there is a set of books from the Middle Ages that deal with world view issues. Mainly that is Saadia Gaon, Maimonides, Crescas, Joseph Albo, and Abravenal. There are also books that deal with ethics. That started with the Obligations of the Heart (Chovot Levavot). After that there were  a few more. Shaari Teshuva by Rabbainu Yona, Orchot Tzadikim, and a few others. These all seem to me to be the best. 

After the Middle Ages logical thinking in these subjects went out the window. People that were good at logic then went into math and physics and the natural sciences. 

So while the natural sciences benefited, ethics and world view issues suffered.

So while it is admirable the attempt of  Avigdor Miller to defend Torah, still his books are not good arguments. If you want to defend Torah you really have to go to the Middle Ages when people were thinking clearly in these matters.

With due respect, Rav Miller did not understand evolution. Genesis and the Big Bang is full of errors in both Torah and Physics. [But in terms of presenting the idea that Torah and Physics are complementary it is an inspiring book. He gets a A for effort.]  No book that has been written in the frum world about ethics or world view rises above comic book level. The mystics are even worse.
 Not one of them has the slightest idea of what the Ari was talking about.

So while defending Torah is a noble and worthwhile task, it does not help the cause to have idiots and schizos doing the work. They damage the cause by means of their support. And they change the Torah to fit their delusions. 

However I should mention the Chafetz Chaim and the Musar books of the disciples of Israel Salanter are excellent.
Shimshon Refael Hisrch is excellent and so are Rav Cook's books.

universals as modes of necessity.morality is a kind of modes of necessity-not the normal type of F=ma. But "ought"

The point is this related to Maimonides. To see universals as modes of necessity hails back to Aristotle. It is a tantalizing prospect to think if there is a Rambam connection with this idea of modes of necessity. It is known the Rambam was neo Platonic leaning towards Aristotle --but not completely.