A Can of Worms . . .

[fxmarkets]

yes, I know the physical aspect of doing quickness, but I was refering to the mental aspect of quickness. Hmm or did he touch on or experience a moment of "Absolute Truth" now thats potentially vey interesting...

 

[dbphoenix]

DB, I believe I have answered your question with my post to frugi.

Not really, no. But it's no big deal.

 

[starspacer]

Dead philosphers are fair game, but I was referring to the above linked articles of Eric Verhine, Fred Foldvary and Raymond Lloyd Richmond, all of which seem to have been written in the last ten years and which you have plagiarised sufficiently to warrant your Ctrl, C and V keys' taking out critical illness cover, as mine did during English A-level coursework, although they were called pens in those days.

Please give credit where it's due, that's all I'm asking, or reluctantly we will have to delete your "brief excerpts" (see guidelines below). It's nowt personal I can assure you and especially irritating for me as what you posted was interesting. I've certainly fallen victim to anger on the M1, but eventually found that blowing a kiss to miscreants usually has a much more satisfactory effect than seeking the usual pointless revenge.

I have done what you asked frugi. I could argue the point - fair use, non-profit, reference, less than 400 words and so on, but I recognize this would be futile since these are T2W's rules and not the Copyright Act of 1976's. Quite interesting considering fxmarkets earlier post on operation mind control about CIA (read any authoritative body)controlling effects on citizens.
A free society provides the foundation and indeed, enables the means to transcend and criticise the existing order. It is the opportunity to pursue studies without reference to the sanctions that normally govern behavior in the society. A society can be transformed intelligently only if it allows people to search for better ways of life than currently prevail and without excessive censorship.

Criticism is meaningless since according to the Socratic paradigm of sagacious inner strength, a good man cannot be harmed. In 399 BC an Athenian jury convicted Socrates, then age 70 on the basis of what his opinions were. Yet, by what we now know as Socratic questioning, the authorities were exposed as ignorant and phony fools.

The classic irony is that fxmarkets was alluding to censorship before being consciously aware of it occurring. To refer to my earlier post, the basic metaphor of the Socratic mode of knowing is that the Truth is sought, but this metaphor deconstructs itself because the nature of seeking implies some sense of prior possession. If one is to find the truth, one must find it already in one's possession.

And indeed, fxmarkets already had the Truth in his possession, but being a censored citizen, to quote Bertie’s signature “The great majority are unaware of its existence, or, choose to ignore it. Consequently they succeed in misdirecting themselves to choose the wrong side of this line, for reasons best known to themselves. This is a source of amazement to those very few able to correctly logically deduce and reason, viewing nearly everything you will encounter here as nonsense, pure nonsense, that the majority ultimately embrace."

 

[starspacer]

And before any unintelligent person of poor character just waiting - even as I deny the need - to be taught how to think and behave criticizes, you might consider that the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. Consider that your understanding may not be all encompassing enough to understand the paradox that envelops you. Such knowing involves a discourse between our emotions and our intellect and you may have to accept that you just aren’t ‘up to it’ and you are therefore not capable of understanding the Truth.



The trouble is, the people who make these judgements of censorship, are strangers. I have never met them. I have never seen them. I have never spoken to them on the telephone. For all I know, they could be paranoid intellectual parasites, feeding off the bones of those with more fertile and subtle minds, of keener judgement and prudence than they. They are the wastrels who foolishly equivocate that "Life is just as simple as it seems" on the one hand and "Life is not as simple as it seems" on the other. Truth fears no trial.



And to those who jeer in cacophonous unison, consider that If you cannot find the truth right where you are, where else do you expect to find it?



By your very inactions you heap opprobrium on yourselves and your obdurate maggot-like weedy rhetoric and succour to authority will result in your pleading, flailing whims being ignored at will by the powerful. I mention no names, you know who you are.



You need to extend your imaginations a little. It is ridiculous complacency to suggest that apathy is of no consequence. You have planted the seed of a hatred just begun, even though you probably do not know it. Without this advancement in thought, your howls of protest will be nothing more than laughable, unseemly mutterings of the uninformed.



I do not fear the Truth, I embrace it, for I understand the paradox of self-deception and the necessity of doing what one thinks is right even in the face of universal opposition, and the need to pursue knowledge even when opposed.

 

[TheBramble]

We would do well to ponder that aggression (whether verbal or physical) results as a psychological defense against threats of fragmentation. That is, as infants, we are just a jumble of diverse biological processes over which we have no authority, and our first task in life is to develop a coherent identity which “pulls together” this fragmented confusion.

This identity may give the appearance of a unified personality, but it really is just a psychological illusion that hides our essential human vulnerability and weakness. And when anything, or anyone, threatens us with the truth of our essential fragmentation, the quickest and easiest defense available—to hide the truth of weakness and give the illusion of power—is aggression. As a result, some persons will fly into a rage about almost anything. But some persons, don't get any closer to anger than apathy. And yet apathy really is a veiled form of anger because, like all anger, apathy, even though it achieves its goal through passive indifference, ultimately wishes harm on another person.

And that is why, in this case, I believe Socrates is correct .

Hi starspacer, thanks for your reply. Even if it is a little ambiguous/confusing.

Not sure what it is you are claiming Socrates is correct in. From your post it seems you may be indicating you believe Socrates is in fear of fragmentation. And in turn become aggressive. But you are condoning this response? (You 'believe Socrates is correct')

And having read all the other posts from you and others, I understand most of what you are posting is quoted from others. Again, that can be useful. But normally more useful in context (if this thread any longer has one) and as a reference point to some original thought following on from or in support of the quoted text(s). Reams of quotes tend to leave most people none the wiser unless there's a point to quoting it or a in a context which adds anything or makes sense.

If you are saying Socrates is aggressive (ordnance, cannon balls etc.) I am not sure. These are just playful terms I am sure. And is similar in spirit to that bonhomie and merrie riposte with which most other engage him on these boards. Where the problems arise is where he is rude and personally insulting to other members. Were you saying that all those who do not call him to heel on these issues and attempt to correct his behaviour are culpable by their inaction? Hardly fair. The moderators can't be expected to police the boards every minute of the day.

Passive indifference is precisely that. Not caring and not doing. However, wishing another harm by taking no action is not passive indifference - it it passive intent. Active indifference would be akin to someone hitting the ignore poster facility on these boards for instance.

Highly confused by your posts as seem to be a number of other members, but I'm sure you can perhaps at least clear up your stance on precisely what it was you thought Socrates was correct in. Probably best if you do it in your own words than by resorting to another quote as that may be where the problems are arising. The illusion that communication has taken place because words have been written.

 

[neil]

Quote and Unquote

Hi starspacer, thanks for your reply. Even if it is a little ambiguous/confusing.

Not sure what it is you are claiming Socrates is correct in. From your post it seems you may be indicating you believe Socrates is in fear of fragmentation. And in turn become aggressive. But you are condoning this response? (You 'believe Socrates is correct')

And having read all the other posts from you and others, I understand most of what you are posting is quoted from others. Again, that can be useful. But normally more useful in context (if this thread any longer has one) and as a reference point to some original thought following on from or in support of the quoted text(s). Reams of quotes tend to leave most people none the wiser unless there's a point to quoting it or a in a context which adds anything or makes sense.

If you are saying Socrates is aggressive (ordnance, cannon balls etc.) I am not sure. These are just playful terms I am sure. And is similar in spirit to that bonhomie and merrie riposte with which most other engage him on these boards. Where the problems arise is where he is rude and personally insulting to other members. Were you saying that all those who do not call him to heel on these issues and attempt to correct his behaviour are culpable by their inaction? Hardly fair. The moderators can't be expected to police the boards every minute of the day.

Passive indifference is precisely that. Not caring and not doing. However, wishing another harm by taking no action is not passive indifference - it it passive intent. Active indifference would be akin to someone hitting the ignore poster facility on these boards for instance.

Highly confused by your posts as seem to be a number of other members, but I'm sure you can perhaps at least clear up your stance on precisely what it was you thought Socrates was correct in. Probably best if you do it in your own words than by resorting to another quote as that may be where the problems are arising. The illusion that communication has taken place because words have been written.

.......And I wish quoters would use the standard "Harvard" system of referencing quote sources

 

[chump]

Quote:
Originally Posted by starspacer
And yet apathy really is a veiled form of anger because, like all anger, apathy, even though it achieves its goal through passive indifference, ultimately wishes harm on another person.

Originally posted by DBPhoenix.
Interesting viewpoints. Do you have any evidence to support either ot them?

In the context of "truth" this was interesting....
"Truth" ..whose "truth" measurable by what criteria ?

Above a "truth" was expressed by way of an expression of belief ....evidence was requested , but not given. What was given was an expression of belief by the poster and 'support' was given by referring to expressions of belief made by some long dead worthies..

What was interesting was the view of "truth" expressed ..typically a "truth" is nothing more than an expression of belief.. for example ... consider do UK uniformed police wear a uniform whose colour is blue ? If you subscribe to the everday labelling of colours you will take this to be true ..you will believe it...however , if you are colourblind..or from a different planet etc you probably will not ...so what is the "truth" in this example ? Perhaps it is nothing more than a utility value . For example if I wish to paint my backside blue ,but go shopping for a tin of 'scratchmyarse' then the utility value of my belief is negative as I am unlikely to achieve my stated goal. This does not mean that there are at least two "truths" in the example..it simply means that only one of those identified has positive utility value in achieving the stated goal.

So when we talk about "truth" as in the original case "apathy really is a veiled form of anger " what we are talking about is a belief which may be based upon a personally experienced positive utility value ..however that does not mean that utility value and hence "truth" holds for anyone other than ourself...which I suspect is why evidence was requested.

You can see the same process in 'smoking is bad for your health' ..many people who have smoked and stopped will hold this to be true if they experienced positive utility value ... many who do not hold this to be true do so because they have not experienced that utility value..

Brings us to a very thorny pickle though ..."correct" and "truths" are ultimately subjective and changing the views of others to share our subjective view is a none starter unless they can be given the utility value experience that goes into holding that belief ("truth").

Unfortunately , analysing the utility value of beliefs is not always has simple as in the above examples and not to miss out in the name dropping stakes Oscar Wilde gave us "The truth is rarely pure , and never simple " ..unfortunately as supporting evidence for my suggestions this only means that this is one more dead luminary amongst many littered throughout history who was fortunate enough to die before dropping an atrocious bollock which would have shown him to be as ordinary as the rest of us.

"truths" in my belief (LOL)are ultimately linked to the utility values you derive from them ..if they are positive in achieving your goals then that may be all the "truth" you need...does however raise the issue of knowing where your self interests (stated goals) lie ...and from my experience of people that is quite a problem and one which I shall have to say leaves me apathetic BUT not angry ...LOL

 

[timsk]

What was interesting was the view of "truth" expressed ..typically a "truth" is nothing more than an expression of belief.

chump,
Good post. The sentence quoted seems to sum up the heart of your message. At least, that's my belief
Essentially, what what one person believes to be true may be different from what the next person believes to be true. There is a lot of evidence to support the notion that 2 + 2 = 4. However, it has no relevance whatsoever to the person who believes 2 + 2 = 5. While I imagine that most people reading this board will subscribe to the addition totalling 4, there are relatively few such black and white examples when it comes to trading. In the context of the markets, perceived 'truths' are largely - if not entirely - subjective. Therefore, to offer evidence for one's beliefs - no matter how compelling these may be - is a pretty pointless exercise.
Tim.

 

[dbphoenix]

chump,
Good post. The sentence quoted seems to sum up the heart of your message. At least, that's my belief
Essentially, what what one person believes to be true may be different from what the next person believes to be true. There is a lot of evidence to support the notion that 2 + 2 = 4. However, it has no relevance whatsoever to the person who believes 2 + 2 = 5. While I imagine that most people reading this board will subscribe to the addition totalling 4, there are relatively few such black and white examples when it comes to trading. In the context of the markets, perceived 'truths' are largely - if not entirely - subjective. Therefore, to offer evidence for one's beliefs - no matter how compelling these may be - is a pretty pointless exercise.
Tim.

If you're going to try to apply all of this to trading, and if you're trading based on belief, then offering evidence to support those beliefs is not only not a pointless exercise, it IS the exercise.

--Db

 

[timsk]

If you're going to try to apply all of this to trading, and if you're trading based on belief, then offering evidence to support those beliefs is not only not a pointless exercise, it IS the exercise.
--Db

Dbp,
I agree completely. To trade without having some foundation that leads one to believe that one's actions are likely result in the outcome that one desires is, at best, gambling.

However, this is a different proposition from putting forward those same views for the consideration of others. I can have loads of what I consider evidence to support my beliefs but, to you or the next man, this 'evidence' may be meaningless and / or worthless.
Tim.

 

[starspacer]

TheBramble Hi starspacer, thanks for your reply. Even if it is a little ambiguous/confusing. Not sure what it is you are claiming Socrates is correct in. From your post it seems you may be indicating you believe Socrates is in fear of fragmentation. And in turn become aggressive. But you are condoning this response? (You 'believe Socrates is correct')

On the contrary Bramble, Bertie is correct in all of his posts, excepting the slur, which I assume was a Socratic Paradox. We know that Athenian Socrates believed that "virtue is knowledge." In other words, If one knows the good, one will always action the good. Anyone who does anything wrong doesn't really know what the good is. Thus for Bertie, it could be that this was sufficient justification to question a person’s moral position, for if they have incorrect or insufficient knowledge about “psychological activity”, “soul”, “excellence”, “justice or any other ethical idea, they can't be trusted to do the right thing. I am sure that Bertie will speak for himself, I am simply putting forward a possible explanation for his post.

And having read all the other posts from you and others, I understand most of what you are posting is quoted from others. Again, that can be useful. But normally more useful in context (if this thread any longer has one) and as a reference point to some original thought following on from or in support of the quoted text(s).

A rather sweeping statement, Bramble, which serves, ipso facto, to prove Bertie’s posting “To tell someone who is ignorant of a fact and persists in insisting is perfectly acceptable, because to be patently ignorant is not an insult, it is a statement of fact. To be ignorant is a normal state of being for everybody until they are given the correct information and then they cease to be so.”
You have simply offered both an unintentional self-critique and self-parody, which precisely proves Bertie’s point. I suggest you re-read his posts more carefully and, most importantly, THINK about the contents.

Reams of quotes tend to leave most people none the wiser unless there's a point to quoting it or a in a context which adds anything or makes sense.

Most people, Bramble? You have statistical evidence of course to back up your premise? No, I thought not. Again, unintentional self-parody which simply serves to make you look foolish, I’m afraid.

If you are saying Socrates is aggressive (ordnance, cannon balls etc.) I am not sure. These are just playful terms I am sure. And is similar in spirit to that bonhomie and merrie riposte with which most other engage him on these boards. Where the problems arise is where he is rude and personally insulting to other members. Were you saying that all those who do not call him to heel on these issues and attempt to correct his behaviour are culpable by their inaction? Hardly fair. The moderators can't be expected to police the boards every minute of the day.

No I am not saying this at all. Bertie questions as a means of instruction, to compel the uninformed to think a problem through to a logical conclusion. The robustness of his discourse has no relevance, and may even be helpful in encouraging them to think more lucidly.

Passive indifference is precisely that. Not caring and not doing. However, wishing another harm by taking no action is not passive indifference - it it passive intent. Active indifference would be akin to someone hitting the ignore poster facility on these boards for instance.

Passive indifference becomes malignant in a moment of crisis and this is the point. Circumstances are manipulated (whether intentional or not) so that you can believe in your own mind that persons have somehow hurt you and deserve to suffer for it.

Highly confused by your posts….

Yes, it is clear that you have not grasped their meaning. I suggest you conduct an Einsteinian "Deep Thought Experiment." You might find it brings an amazing wealth of insights and clarity to your current muddled thinking.

 

[silviaic]

wow guys, this is really an elevated discussion!

I am staring in amazement.

By the way, I just came here to see if someone has a toothpick to lend me, I have this very annoying piece of parsley stuck between my teeth I can't get rid off. Thanks.

Silvia.
(keep the difficult words coming, no idea what they mean but they sound nice and I'm going to impress my man next time he accuses me of cheating on him. For example:

Unfortunately , analysing the utility value of beliefs is not always ... simple ..... Oscar Wilde gave us "The truth is rarely pure , and never simple "

and you know what dear?

Criticism is meaningless since according to the Socratic paradigm of sagacious inner strength, a good man (woman) cannot be harmed

But the lads told me they saw you at the pub!

Dear: The robustness of (their) discourse has no relevance

And if he decides to start sulking:

And yet apathy really is a veiled form of anger. Make me a cuppa and don't forget the sugar babe)

 

[dbphoenix]

Dbp,
I agree completely. To trade without having some foundation that leads one to believe that one's actions are likely result in the outcome that one desires is, at best, gambling.

However, this is a different proposition from putting forward those same views for the consideration of others. I can have loads of what I consider evidence to support my beliefs but, to you or the next man, this 'evidence' may be meaningless and / or worthless.
Tim.

It's not different at all. Either your strategy does what it's supposed to do or it doesn't, and this is easily verifiable by anyone who knows your rules. What you or anyone "believes" is irrelevant.

--Db

 

[Splitlink]

Quote:
Originally Posted by starspacer
And yet apathy really is a veiled form of anger because, like all anger, apathy, even though it achieves its goal through passive indifference, ultimately wishes harm on another person.

I agree that apathy can cause harm on another person but do not agree that it wishes harm on him. I question , also, whether anger necessarily wishes harm, either.

Apathy or indifference causes less stress to oneself than the act of losing one's temper, especially if the subject causes the other to lose his temper, too. Why bother? Far better to be apathetic or indifferent to it.

Split

 

[sp1]

The title is The Technology of Political Control...
It explains how the herd is controlled and misdirected and dumbed down.

Recommended reading for deep thinkers.

Is the mainstream view of accepted history one facet of the misdirection?

If yes is there a particular strand of revisionist history that you recommend for deep thinkers?

Or do you view some or all of them as wrong?

As an aside Socrates Have you had a PM bomb attack?

Regards

 

[SOCRATES]

I am now free, I will proceed to answer your posts, in reverse order of appearance.

 

[SOCRATES]

Is the mainstream view of accepted history one facet of the misdirection?

Yes, one must always disregard what is mainstream because it is mainstream, and therefore neither empowered, specific or necessarily accurate.

If yes is there a particular strand of revisionist history that you recommend for deep thinkers?

No, I cannot do that, I am not a historian. But I recommend you inspect to verify, and not just to read for the sake of reading. If you think deeply, it will enhance your overall understanding of everything, as everything is relative to eveything else.

Or do you view some or all of them as wrong?

Nothing can be wrong until it is verified not to be correct. For you to do this, you have to change your intellectual posture first and then apply effort to sustain a revised intellectual posture. This is not an easy task because, the intellectual posture you may have adopted may have as a consequence of inputs not suitable for the task, amd may even be the consequence of acquired habits. Therefore you have not only to change your posture, but your inputs as well.



As an aside Socrates Have you had a PM bomb attack?

No, I have been very busy with other matters, and therefore disabled the PM facility for the duration.

Regards

Kind Regards.

 

[SOCRATES]

Quote:
Originally Posted by starspacer
And yet apathy really is a veiled form of anger because, like all anger, apathy, even though it achieves its goal through passive indifference, ultimately wishes harm on another person.

I agree that apathy can cause harm on another person but do not agree that it wishes harm on him. I question , also, whether anger necessarily wishes harm, either.

Apathy or indifference causes less stress to oneself than the act of losing one's temper, especially if the subject causes the other to lose his temper, too. Why bother? Far better to be apathetic or indifferent to it.

Split

You have not considered the dichotomy from both side, only from one side.

What response would you offer to a member whose intent is to do you harm, for no reason other than obsession fuelled by envy ?

Would you attack, acquiesce, or ignore ?

Would you leave the boards, or would you put up with incessant stalking under different nicks, trouble making by PM, stirring up agressive, misinformed, defranchised, idle, ignorant, envious and malignant entities ?

Or would you succumb to the temptation of punishing by not helping, by witholding crucial knowledge ?

I think the latter is the most devastating, don't you ?

Does indifference imply a wish to harm, or is the victim the architect of his own misfortune ?

 

[SOCRATES]

It's not different at all. Either your strategy does what it's supposed to do or it doesn't, and this is easily verifiable by anyone who knows your rules. What you or anyone "believes" is irrelevant.

--Db

Quite so. It either works or it does not work. If it does work, it does, and if it doesn't it fails for a reason. There is no point in persisting in trying to reinvent the wheel, just for the sake of finding something to do.

 

[SOCRATES]

wow guys, this is really an elevated discussion!

I am staring in amazement.

By the way, I just came here to see if someone has a toothpick to lend me, I have this very annoying piece of parsley stuck between my teeth I can't get rid off. Thanks.

Silvia.
(keep the difficult words coming, no idea what they mean but they sound nice and I'm going to impress my man next time he accuses me of cheating on him. For example:

Unfortunately , analysing the utility value of beliefs is not always ... simple ..... Oscar Wilde gave us "The truth is rarely pure , and never simple "

and you know what dear?

Criticism is meaningless since according to the Socratic paradigm of sagacious inner strength, a good man (woman) cannot be harmed

But the lads told me they saw you at the pub!

Dear: The robustness of (their) discourse has no relevance

And if he decides to start sulking:

And yet apathy really is a veiled form of anger. Make me a cuppa and don't forget the sugar babe)

Good evening Silvia,

I disagree with Oscar Wilde, the truth is invariably very simple. The dilemma is that it is laid out plainly for all to see, yet no one ventures to believe it as a consequence of requiring a degree of effort very few are able to put together in order to acquire it.

Additionally, people are apt to herd together and take comfort in collective opinions.

The opinions may be diverse and actually lead to disagreement, but the end result is that individuals are reluctant to carve their own paths, and a consequence of using others' opinions as a guide disable themselves from being wholly independent.

You only have to observe the behaviour of crowds to understand this.

First of all, before a crowd forms, there has to be unity of purpose.

Now as a result of unity of purpose and collective interest (or disagreement) a crowd forms.

The crowd now declares its collective interest, purpose, mission or even disagreement.

Once the requirements of this crowd are satisfied, the assembly now goes into a phase of decay, and dissipates.

All of this works in every example of life in which crowds are allowed or encouraged to assemble for people to be able to giveup their own individulaity in sacrificial mode to the mind of the crowd as a sharing excercise.

The problem with this is that it proportionately diminishes each and every crowd member.

This is additionally in this profession is very difficult for a lot of people, because they are accustomed to sharing.

When they enter the cold cruel hard world of trading, somehow it is forgotten that trading is not about sharing, but about being fiercely competive. It could be compared to gladiatorial combat, That is why you are so right about inner strength.

Enjoy your cup of tea and don't make waves with him, he probably is a decent chap, you could be all alone, and that could be much worse.

I remember a converastion I had with a lady who much regretted her divorce, and commented that she missed her ex husband, if only to throw saucepans at him.