Questions following your book, True and Unstable

peace
I finished reading your book "Truth and Unstable" this Shavuot holiday, may your strength be exalted.
I remembered your criticism of Menachem Navet's book on the Repentance, which tried to base his thoughts on the teachings of the Rambam, and you noted that the practice of yeshiva students to base all their words on the Rambam is not necessary and sometimes forced.
At the end of your book, you wrote that the words of the Rambam in the Law of the Foundations of the Torah (58) regarding belief in a prophet based on miracles should be explained in your opinion, as one must distinguish between truth and certainty. It seems to me that it has not escaped your attention that the Rambam thought that all of his words were true and stable, and that anyone who does not think like him is mistaken at best. For example, I will cite his words in the Mo'N (1 Lo, from the Responsa project) which, in my opinion, contradict the words of the Radbaz (Responsa 4:15) known for their lack of reason, and the late Rambam there: And know that when you believe in fulfillment or in matters of rain, that you are jealous and angry and provoke fire and heat, and hate and enemy and oppressor, it is much more difficult than the worshipers of the Law. And if it occurs to you that the one who believes in fulfillment has an excuse for being too much about it or for his foolishness and shortsightedness, then it is appropriate for you to believe in the worshipers of idolatry that he will only worship foolishness or because he was too much about it in the custom of his ancestors. In his hands. And if you say that the simple ones of the Scriptures will cast doubt on this, you will know that the worshiper of idolatry has indeed brought him to its worship incomplete imaginations and images. There is no excuse, then, for anyone who does not accept from the verifiers who examine it if he is short of the study. I will not consider a heretic who does not bring a model for the removal of fulfillments, but I will consider a heretic who does not believe in its removal, and all the more so according to the decree of Pi Onkelus and the commentary of Jonathan, peace be upon him, they remove from fulfillment everything that made it possible.
And now for a general matter. You commented at the beginning of the book that you were told that in Quartet you attacked analyticity but did not present a synthetic subtext, and in the book "True and Unstable" you expound on synthetic methodology, but I was surprised to see that you only briefly addressed the essence of syntheticity in my opinion, which is how to find the alpha and beta parameters, that is, how to develop the 'discovery context.'
The methods for developing auditory reasoning are not related to methodology but are similar to the methods that make one 'see' the type of solution to a differential equation. Also, if we try to diagnose people who had auditory reasoning, we will notice that they were not the ones with great methodologies but rather had a phenomenal intuitive sense.
In my opinion, the method for developing this ability is to live in the atmosphere of the field in which we are interested in developing our auditory sense. In the case of mathematics, this means rubbing shoulders with professors, solving exercises, etc., and thus living in the mathematical milieu. In the case of Torah, the method, in my opinion, is to return to primary sources such as the Bible in its entirety, to live a 'halachic life' close to the way our ancestors lived: in the Land of Israel, without excessive severity and calmly, from a general view of the Torah (not just laws that pertain to this time), to make a decent living, and so on, and then to enter the world of Kabbalah, which is the living spirit behind the methods.
The thirteen virtues required by the Torah are an expression of general eloquent logic compared to the Stoic Greek logic, but there is a secret eloquent logic that is given in Kabbalah – as Rabbi Hanazir wrote in the first section of his book The Voice of Prophecy.
Developing a methodology for the context of discovery is, in my opinion, akin to providing a more in-depth definition of gradation by scope instead of developing the skills required for definition by content.