I would be glad for a reference on this, and whether there you also explained why we are bound by the Talmudthat is, by the Tannaim and Amoraimand do not disagree with them, the way we disagree with later authorities, medieval authorities (Rishonim), and Geonim, and even with them themselves in aggadah and in interpretations of verses. What gives this binding force?

I already answered you about our being bound by the Talmud in the appropriate place. If you keep pestering here endlessly for no reason, Ill block you.
There is no authority at all to aggadah or verse-interpretations, only to Jewish law. Search here on the site for formal and substantive authority.

The reference is to my article Good Measure, also here on the site, the first and second books in the Talmudic Logic series (on Amazon), and more.

Id be glad if, when you eventually have a fully worked-out position on the matter of derashot, you would publish it.

In any case, I wanted to ask whether our view of the Sages is that they are elevated above ordinary people. Because I remember that in one place you wrote that actually no, on the contrary, we know much more than they did; their advantage is only that they were closer in time to the giving of the Jewish laws, and only in that respect do they have an advantage. But from what you say regarding the interpretive principles, it sounds like their words are above us and we have no grasp of their methods of derash.

And there are expressions in the medieval authorities and Geonim about the derashot of the Sages saying that one does not have to believe them except for what is reasonable, because sometimes they just said whatever came into their minds, which doesnt give the Sages that much honor. On the other hand, there is Maimonides and others who say that all their words are by way of parable and wisdom, which basically elevates the Sages.

So bottom line, how should one look at the Sages? As elevated above us, with no grasp of their methods of study, and likewise no grasp of their aggadic statements? Or is it really the case that in aggadah and derash they said various things that were not especially wise?

I referred you to things I published.
You are mixing up halakhic derash and aggadic derash. I deal only with halakhic derash. Aggadic derash, as I understand it, is usually homiletics, little sermonettes.
In halakhic derash we have no understanding because it has been lost to us. That has nothing to do with exaltedness, superiority, and the like.

Okay, I understand, thanks.

ABut in aggadah too there are the 32 interpretive principles by which aggadah is expounded, and even so, when the medieval authorities and Geonim didnt understand strange aggadot, they rejected them and disagreed and said expressions like the ones mentioned aboveif it isnt reasonable, dont believe it. So why didnt they say that the methods of aggadic derash had been lost to us?

BJust generally, what is your understanding regarding Maimonides approach?
Did he disagree with the Sages on matters of mysticism, as his opponents claim?
Or, like Meiri, did he understand that the Sages meant those things only for the masses who believed in them, as the Maimonideans say?
Its a bit hardhow are we to explain Joseph the demon in Eruvin? It sounds like they literally saw a demon floating in the air.

AI already stated my view about the interpretive principles of aggadic derash. By the way, the 32 principles are not exclusively for aggadah, and this is not the place to elaborate.
BI assume he disagreed with the Sages.

Yes, I know: 19 out of the 32 are only for aggadah, and 13 out of the 32 are also for Jewish law.

But I didnt understand what you meant when you said that you had already stated your view about aggadic derash. Thats exactly what Im asking: how does your view of aggadic derash fit with your view of halakhic derash? Why is it that with halakhic derash you maintain that they are all from the 13 principles, and therefore we cant disagree because the method has been lost to us, whereas with aggadic derash you dont maintain that it works according to the 32 principles, but rather that they are just homilies and sermonettes, and therefore one can disagree?

Not at all. First, there are disputes about how many principles there are in the baraita of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. And even if there are 32, the 13 of Rabbi Ishmael are not included in them. Rabbi Samson of Chinon, in Sefer Keritut, offers explanations for why, and only some of them are rooted in the fact that these are aggadic principles, not necessarily 19.
There are several indications of this. First, in aggadic derash there is no systematic method in the use of the principles. There is no consistency and no ongoing give-and-take to clarify all the way how each one expounds. Nor is there a tradition that they are from Sinai. Aggadah is also not binding on anyone, and it doesnt seem that anyone takes it too seriously. By contrast, regarding the interpretive principles of halakhic derash, there is agreement that they are a law given to Moses at Sinai, and there is a documented tradition that also shows their development: 2 with Othniel son of Kenaz, 7 with Hillel, 13 with Rabbi Ishmael, and others with Rabbi Akiva, and so on. There is give-and-take in the Talmud about midrashim in which each side has to explain what it does with every word in the verse and with the derash, and so on, and of course binding laws are generated from them, with punishments as well.