(diary) You know, while my ambition was to emulate the visualizations of Becker,

(diary)

You know, while my ambition was to emulate the visualizations of Becker, when I write, try to emulate Hayek, because I see my work as the continuation of his.

But like Spinoza and Wittgenstein who ‘sensed’ the format of the future of philosophy – they just couldn’t solve the underlying problem of measurement – they understood that the argumentative structure was that of law. Unfortunately, Jews adopted idealism as a means of improving pilpul and they just couldn’t escape it.

That’s where I’ve made my mistake. I’ve been trying to emulate Hayek who argued from history, information, and incentive, rather than Spinoza and Wittgenstein that tried to (and failed) write proofs – when, de facto, all I write is proofs, even if unlike them, I work, like hayek from history, information, and incentives. You cannot write proofs from idealism. The measurements don’t exist like they do from actions.

Greater parsimony. Historical parables. And eliminate the intermediate narrative, rather than attempt to construct the intermediate narrative.