I keep trying to find some venue that I can use to work into the Right’s intellectual stream. Unfortunately, it’s not possible. I mean, you know, an argument against something isn’t an argument FOR anything. It’s pretty hard to be against something if you aren’t FOR something ELSE.
Source date (UTC): 2014-01-08 13:49:00 UTC
Skye Stewart shared a link to your timeline.
Source date (UTC): 2014-01-08 13:48:00 UTC
VERY INTERESTING : ON INCEPTION
What is the difference between socratic inception, confucian inception, magian inception, and obscurant inception?
very, very, interesting…. hmmmm…..
1) suggestion is obvious on reflection – giving the answer.
2) inception is not – suggestion of ideas that lead to a conclusion, not obvious on reflection.
and
3) metaphysical assumptions are not suggested or conscious, and therefore not obvious on reflection.
Source date (UTC): 2014-01-08 09:13:00 UTC
Another watershed couple of days.
I have my arms around the problem of mathematical platonism, and therefore all platonism. And I can argue that platonism, like obscurantism, is immoral, at least in public speech. And since I can prove platonism is unnecessary, and a remnant of primitive religion, then one must choose to perpetuate the immoral for convenience.
But perhaps, more importantly, I can sort of sense, in a tip-of-the-tongue sort of way, the degree to which ‘babylonian magic’ still remains in western thought. A kind of dependence on the dream state that is not present in the germanic mythos, but is pervasive in monotheistic thought.
What does it mean for our society when we emphasize the real, versus the dream? The acting versus the observing?
Again, from the naturalist view, we have only so much time to think about what corresponds with reality, OR dream about what does not. Is then, magian thought, simply lost opportunity cost? And is that the entire point of magianism? To deprive people of the opportunity of thinking about alternatives in the real?
Is the magian the ultimate source of Popper’s ignorance?
Source date (UTC): 2014-01-08 06:54:00 UTC
http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2014/01/06/the-biggest-bet-ever/SOROS VS ADELSON
The future of gambling under siege by special interests?
Source date (UTC): 2014-01-08 06:31:00 UTC
I am out of people’s comfort zones. lol
Sorry. I’m not searching for justification. I’m looking for answers. Looking for justification is why libertarians failed.
If you are looking for scientific truth then you don’t get to dislike the results. They are what they are.
And you must alter your strategy accordingly.
Source date (UTC): 2014-01-08 05:19:00 UTC
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-mathematics/LESS IGNORANCE OF MATHEMATICAL PHILOSOPHY – CONTINUED
I’ve been working my way through this reading list and it turns out that plenty of people have written on the subject, but it’s not clear that they understand the underlying problem of correspondence (even if they use the term ‘external authority’). And the best author in the space is incorrect, and the matter apparently isnt settled.
So, now it’s off to articulate the solution to this particular problem, even in mathematics. That will sort of anchor the legitimacy of my argument in favor of operational language in all disciplines.
Sigh.
Roman is pushing me to publish and not to spend time outside of Politics and Ethics. But my instinct tells me that my argument (calculation) seems to invite the solution to unifying the ‘logics’ and, as I’d hoped, eliminating platonism as well as obscurantism.
If in fact, the innovations that I’m adding to political ethics are largely in the realm of requiring calculability and operational language, then it would seem to me that I should also ground operational language and calculability.
Source date (UTC): 2014-01-08 04:16:00 UTC
(advice for the nervous)
Philosophy is what I do. Its my sort of job. Everything else is a hobby that I make money at. I don’t view it as a waste of my time to work with even the most inexperienced person. I find joy in talking to other curious minds.
And, sure, I love that people show me respect. Really. But I’m an English-American. I am not looking for status or approval. I have been plenty successful in my life. I’m not stuffy. I’m not every serious in person. I’m kind of silly really.
If possible, I’d prefer people ask me questions rather than argue with me because it’s just less work. And less confrontational. So that’s the only respect I sort of need. Otherwise just asking for help or clarity or information, is the best respect you can show me.
(Trying to make the world a better place for fellow nerds. 🙂 )
Source date (UTC): 2014-01-07 20:42:00 UTC
Thank you Roman.
You are the best advisor, ever. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2014-01-07 20:18:00 UTC
http://takimag.com/article/the_street_keynesians_theodore_dalrymple/print#ixzz2plRrTw2eJOHN DERBYSHIRE MANAGES TO TEASE THE FRENCH AND KRUGMAN AT THE SAME TIME
(Peugeots roasting, on an open fire…. The smoke from Opels stinging at your nose…. Hmmm Hmmm Hmmmmm… Merry Christmaaaaaaaaas tooooooo yoooooooo….)
(If you don’t know, burning cars have become a ritualistic exercise in France with 130 or so cars burned per day, and over a thousand on New Year’s.)
–“Having read Mr. Krugman in The New York Times, [the French] have been persuaded that there is a chronic lack of demand in the French economy that they have decided to stimulate by burning cars.”
“What better stimulation, indeed, could be imagined? The roughly 40,000 cars burned a year .. provide employment for thousands of people. The cars have to be replaced, so manufacturing is encouraged; service industries such as sales and insurance are likewise given a fillip.”
“When .. Sarkozy called the rabble who rioted in 2005 “scum,” he should really have thanked them for their presciently Keynesian conduct.”–
(Krugman is notorious for perpetuating the broken window fallacy.)
Source date (UTC): 2014-01-07 20:07:00 UTC