Transgender.

Transgender.   If a male wants to became a female the process should be simple. Just take every single cell in his body and turn the Y chromosome into an X chromosome. On the other hand, if doctors can not do that, then they can not make him into a female by simply castrating him. [Females have two X's and males have a X and Y.]

I am on the side of Leonard Nelson in terms of non intuitive immediate knowledge

Though I am on the side of Leonard Nelson in terms of non intuitive immediate knowledge as explained in the web site of Kelley Ross.  I  think the criticism on Hegel is a bit over done. If one notices the atrocities of communism, then the best thing would be to attack Marx. Why make Hegel take the blame? 

On the other hand you might ask why do I not mention this to Kantians? Kelley Ross. Robert Hanna. Or other extremely smart philosophers nowadays? Well to be frank the fact is they are in fact very smart and very good at arguing their points. I do not stand the slightest chance of showing my point. Still I can not see that Hegel is as ridiculous as all that. Even Kelley Ross in his PhD thesis brings up two good points of Hegel twice. [About Being, and about the dialectic.]  If Hegel can be be abused, well so can the Bible. Or any system of thought about values. I can not imagine any system of thought that humans can not corrupt--no matter how perfect it is.

[There is another odd thing about all this. If you are in a classroom and the teacher gives a problem in algebra. You come up with one answer. But the the smartest kid in the class who never gets a math problem wrong comes up with a different answer. Would you not have second thoughts about raising your hand to offer your answer? I would. Well in our case, the smartest guys in the room were Carl Gauss [for Fries] and David Hilbert [for Leonard Nelson.] 

Kant Fries--seems to be on the side of Plato in terms of two levels of reality.  Hegel seems to be more along the lines of Plotinus Being leads up to Logos..[Or rather that any place one starts from leads up to Logos. 

psalms  77 and also 105 is the idea of speaking  and saying over the wonders of God. To me this seems like a clear statement about the importance of learning Physics. And I think you can see this in the Mishna Torah of the Rambam. In the first four chapters of Mishna Torah the Rambam goes into the Physics and Metaphysics as was understood by Aristotle and the later neo Platonic philosophers. And all that is contained in what the Rambam says there is to think and learn about the wonders of God to come to fear and love of God.

[Physics I think is clear what it entails. But Metaphysics? My impression is that means Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Kant, Leonard Nelson.]

The way to do this I suggest is to take a book of Mathematics and to just say the words in order from the beginning until the end with no repeats and no review until you reach the end. Then you go back to the beginning and start again  until you have finished the book  four times. In this way even a block of wood would understand Differential Calculus.

 

z22 music file

 z22 c minor

z22 in midi

 I was in Breslov today and they were learning LeM vol. I chapter 15. There the gemara is brought up where it was asked which is better Sinai or one who uproots mountains? The gemara answers Sinai is better because everyone needs wheat. That is to say which is better? One who knows all the Mishna and Gemara or one who can go deeply into any given part? Or to put it more simply: bekiut or iyun? Fast learning or in depth?

In that context I made a suggestion of a sort of combination or both in which one learns every day a page of Gemara, Tosphot and Maharsha and the next day just goes onto the next page. That way is a sort of synthesis of in depth learning --as well as one can get in one fast reading-but also makes progress. 

[I am not claiming to be doing this. I have in fact found a lot of obstacles before me when it comes to learning Torah.]

The king Solomon says in Proverbs to check out the ants and learn from its ways. How far can you take this advice? A society comprised totally of women. They are the workers and the warriors. Forget about the men. The few that there are are for a one night with the Queen Mother and then left to die. And what women. They never think of themselves. Their whole line of thought is all about the good of the collective and to do their appointed jobs. The question, "What is in it for me?" never crosses their mind.

I think on one hand the Solomon was thinking that ants in fact go about their daily tasks without being ordered or told to do so. Still the men would have little place in such a world. It is a feminist's dream-except for the problem that when another colony of feminists invades and exterminates everyone.  Feminists' murdering other feminists. Perfect. 

It is however I should note that women nowadays do not resemble female ants very much in terms of altruism.  Perhaps Solomon was suggesting that we all could learn from the altruistic ways of ants.

[But I a should mention that their altruism is limited to their own city state. They make no alliance with other colonies. Rather they wage wars of total extermination one against the other; wars that that make WWI and WWII look like child's play. And also enslave weaker members of the conquered colony. And the older one is, the more expendable she is. The ones sent into war are the old ants.]

And these little critters give the words "baby food" a whole new meaning. --as in listing the ingredients..

 We find that common knowledge is sometimes used as a kind of testimony. This is even brought in the Shut of Rav Moshe Feinstein. There is a law about milk of a gentile. However because of  אנן סהדי common knowledge, Rav Moshe allows it. []Anything other than cow's milk would receive a fine from the government so it is a  case of "we testify"--common knowledge. But that can not make a marriage or a divorce as Rav Shach notes.  Even if we would have a case of a woman brining forth her divorce document in which case we would say that she received it in a proper way, still if witnesses came and said she found it in the trash, this would not be a case of two against two. 

So I suggest אנן סהדי common knowledge, is used a legal only in the case of a derabanan., not laws from the Torah.

[You can see how this is relevant when two people are married and then divorced without all the details of divorce. Then the woman remarries. Are the children of the later marriage mamzerim? I say "No", because of the above idea that the first marriage also did not have two valid witnesses.