So, this changes from time to time. I try something, I fail, I try something else, I fail.
Someday, something will not fail.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Sigh.
They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. --Ronald Reagan
23 comments:
Anonymous
said...
HJL: Are you putting forth the Reagan quote because you don't believe it?
Jeff: Read your thoughts on the UN. I agree that the UN is problematic to say the least (although as a psuedo-historian I do think UNESCO has done some great work).
I don't see how restructuring it would solve the problem. Restructuring would just leave the same corrupt, inefficient, and power hungry people in an new enviroment. Its like trading in Sarah Bernhard for Sarah Jessica Parker. You are still stuck with a ugly girl who everyone loves to praise, but dude, no matter how wonderful people say she is, she's still ugly.
Joey: I've moved the response here. We could do 300 by New Years...but that's pretty huge. At this moment, I've still only managed to log about 80...plus I've started doing sprint/interval workouts, which aren't really properly logged. Maybe 200.
RS: I don't think I even got it. I mean...plus, it was in reference to the UN. You should have saved it for a momma joke.
Im personally surprised no one is concerned with the recent SEC appointment...Paredes' politics and work thus far seem to align with the libertarian/ small gov't approach that both of you, RS and HJL, agree on for securities markets. Common guys...find some common ground for once.
I don't think I believe in a deregulatory approach to regulating securities markets, which is a different question from whether I think the US markets are optimally regulated using the right approach. Also, I don't know anything about the appointees...two FINRA folks and Paredes.
That being said, my common grounds with RS are more or less God of War, Call of Duty, and Medal of Honor. You know, the things that matter.
Oh, I know the guy who wrote that. He's an unpleasant Australian man who was very mean to a friend of mine. (Actually, in the same way that I was paired up with my Chinese partner to cover Hong Kong, he was paired up with a Romanian to cover Australia, and apparently he hated her as much as I hated my guy.)
Paredes doesnt stand for de-regulation, but rather a rejection of SOX and the "onesizefitsall" approach to regs in general. He terms SOX as an over -reaction to the nightmare of Enron (and company) b/c it didnt let the market itself handle some of the consequences. [and SOX ironically was more of an immediate band-aid to the fear in our markets , rather than a well thought out, impressive framework within which to regulate]. Plus, Paredes is rightfully worried about the US competing with other markets around the world, due to our hostile, litigious system. And honestly right now, we cant afford to be hostile. I think one of the best things we can do to encourage investment in the US is to lighten the regulations. Even for small companies to do small public offerings these days it takes teams and teams of lawyers and tons of money. SOX even gets the little guys ...
Thanks Ash. I think we all have common ground in believing that Sarah Jessica Parker is by far the ugliest of all supposedly attractive celebrities.
Sex in the City is a collective blot on our society's goal of eliminating unnatractive people from public view. It is a slippery slope. We had Silver Spoons, which led to Sex in the City. Then we have The View, in which a group of Harpies (Haselbeck not included) attempt to out-Medusa Medusa in a collective desire to guide the "uglies'" herd mentality as its chief bovines, and whose lone accomplishment, the fist bump, strikes one as amongst the type of activties in which fifth grade girls take pleasure. Need I even delve into the fearsome cesspool that is Ugly Betty. Who will rid me of these troublesome priestesses of unattractiveness?
As far as the SEC, I agree with Paredes that sox are a nightmare. Indeed, I have recently trended towards what I term the "open toed" market trend in which the Achilles heel of deregulation that currently effects the sole of the market is governed by a desire to eliminate the footprint of government regulation in an attempt to shoehorn effective control of the securities marketplace.
In seriousness, I'm more concerned with Obama's hostility to the high CEO/CFO salaries (and a desire to regulate them by government fiat) as indicative of a general hostility to the marketplace and those who run it in general. A hostility and mistrust of the market does far more damage than the SEC (indeed, SOX, a post-Enron creation is indicative of that, to say the least).
And I think we need to fix the FEC before we fix the SEC.
Well I dont even watch TV, but that comment was funny b/c my bros have said the same thing....and I could picture you saying that...ugghhh.. this bar stuff is awful...
Aww... lay off SJP. She looks kinda like a horse, but she's a hot horse. I wouldn't kick her outta bed. As one of my friends has said- Sex and the City is just the "before" of the Golden Girls.
RS: I didn't mean restructuring the UN, I meant building a unified global organization from scratch using safeguards and balances modeled after the failures of the UN. But yes, this solution is still dreamy/naive at best.
ADM: re: Reagan's Razor. The fact that neocons suddenly find a hero in Reagan again shouldn't oblige you to pay heed to his quotes about the world. What something "is" or "isn't" (i.e. 'simple' or 'complex') as u well know can only be defined by you, particularly in the case of a world gloss. I would be more inclined to look into what Reagan is or isn't himself if he were a better actor, which he isn't. Anyway it's a meaningless generalization. All I know about Reagan IS that he had lots to do with linking Conservatives with the Religious Right strictly to get more votes and for this I wish someone would've put a bullet in him. Oh wait...
Regardless of what you think about Reagan's legacy, wishing an assassination attempt had succeeded is wrong. I'm a pretty hard guy to offend, but making John Hinkley cracks is patently offensive.
Jeff: The Reagan quote is just something I stumbled across randomly while doing some reading. It's just entirely indicative of the mindset I've been encountering in the past 5 years since I've stumbled upon some sort of political awareness. It exists on both sides...it just happens to be a worldview that has been in power for 8 years.
RS: Given the shit we say to each other, I am going to outright deny your right to be offended by anything. DENIED. (if you need examples, we can begin with your plan to re-colonize an African nation...despite your requests that I serve as some cabinet minister.)
RS: hah! i apologize if I've offended your delicate sensibilities.
On record: I didn't wish him dead, just to have a bullet in him. An idea you would likely agree with I would think! Making guns readily available (even those loaded with explosive-tipped rounds like the ones used in the Regan assassination attempt) is very important to maintaining a civil, nonviolent society. Thankfully, history has proven my joke obsolete as both a bullet-lodging and his death occurred. Consider it a jape, nothing more.
Off record: Fuck Ronald Regan. Fuck him in the ass with a big rubber dick. *laughing maniacally*
ADM: Indeed. It is my feeling that this worldview is dangerous and unecessary. That's two is's in one statement of seeming fact. I shall rephrase:
This worldview bases itself on Aristotelian logic, which only serves to simplify things with the goal of making them easier to understand. Boiling everything down into simple facts or fact-negations (true/false) can fundamentally unhinge channels of true meaning necessary for clear communication. Just because others (read: other conservatives and other democrats) fall prey to these sorts of fallacies doesn't mean you need to.
True/False semantics in speech led Korybski to write General Semantics, which in part deals with his invention of E-Prime: English without the verb "to be." I enjoy this idea and attempt to practice it in my everyday life. I find that it provides a channel to cut through the bullshit originating in everything from friends to media. But that is just me.
On to your other comment, I agree completely, though I think previously I just thought of it as: humans have very limited capacities which are narrowed by corporeal perception, which are then funneled through language, which is then used to try and get some other dude to figure out what the hell you're talking about. (e.g., boobies.) (did I just plagiarize Plato?...didn't mean to)
But what it all comes down to is the fact that we're forced to co-exist with 6 billion people so it's necessary to engage certain ideas in order to "disassemble" them (and ultimately rebuild)...and so you hit a wall at "Black/white" and "True/False" because there's nothing more to disassemble...and at that point I get pissy. And post quotes that embody the "wall," and then Sigh.
the only solution I've come across (not mine own invention) is so-called Maybe-Logic. This is essentially accepting the "maybe" state- including all major states available to the nervous system (true, false, indeterminate, meaningless etc) are happening at the same time until one becomes more prevalent over another. the trick is not to let this happening overtake all these other states, which can in fact become dominant at a later time.
In any case, this isn't what you were asking about.
General Semantics is right there in your response- the idea that going beyond the nervous system is impossible for both observation and communication is enough of a hindrance without these inefficient word-labels fucking everything up by being placeholders for thoughts and ideas as opposed to evoking the thoughts themselves- one of the fundamental dealings of Korzybski's GS. (Korzybski is the correct spelling, apologies.) He called it something like a "tyranny of language" but I only know of this in relation to logic, thought, and language- i hadn't realized it but according to Wiki it's also a teaching and education methodology.
23 comments:
HJL: Are you putting forth the Reagan quote because you don't believe it?
Jeff: Read your thoughts on the UN. I agree that the UN is problematic to say the least (although as a psuedo-historian I do think UNESCO has done some great work).
I don't see how restructuring it would solve the problem. Restructuring would just leave the same corrupt, inefficient, and power hungry people in an new enviroment. Its like trading in Sarah Bernhard for Sarah Jessica Parker. You are still stuck with a ugly girl who everyone loves to praise, but dude, no matter how wonderful people say she is, she's still ugly.
RS
It depends: If by simple you mean stop listening to wrong ideas, yes I agree. Otherwise, hell no I don't believe it.
Then I must weigh in at the defense of my hero. Unfortunately, Contracts calls, so it will have to wait.
And how could you ignore my Bernhard / Parker comment. I've been waiting to use that for weeks now.
RS
RS:
Joey: I've moved the response here. We could do 300 by New Years...but that's pretty huge. At this moment, I've still only managed to log about 80...plus I've started doing sprint/interval workouts, which aren't really properly logged. Maybe 200.
RS: I don't think I even got it. I mean...plus, it was in reference to the UN. You should have saved it for a momma joke.
HJL -
Even I could log 300 by New Years, and I despise running. Fagmatron.
RS
Care to make it interesting? (I think it's Fagamatron)
And why do you keep HJL'ing me?
Especially because not a single person ever uses the H and because I have a fairly well-established set of reference initials.
Im personally surprised no one is concerned with the recent SEC appointment...Paredes' politics and work thus far seem to align with the libertarian/ small gov't approach that both of you, RS and HJL, agree on for securities markets. Common guys...find some common ground for once.
And RS, I did actually enjoy your Sarah Jessica Parker comment.
see here:
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/
corpgov/2008/05/13/nomination
-of-professor-troy-paredes-to-
sec-commissioner/
I don't think I believe in a deregulatory approach to regulating securities markets, which is a different question from whether I think the US markets are optimally regulated using the right approach. Also, I don't know anything about the appointees...two FINRA folks and Paredes.
That being said, my common grounds with RS are more or less God of War, Call of Duty, and Medal of Honor. You know, the things that matter.
Oh, I know the guy who wrote that. He's an unpleasant Australian man who was very mean to a friend of mine. (Actually, in the same way that I was paired up with my Chinese partner to cover Hong Kong, he was paired up with a Romanian to cover Australia, and apparently he hated her as much as I hated my guy.)
Paredes doesnt stand for de-regulation, but rather a rejection of SOX and the "onesizefitsall" approach to regs in general. He terms SOX as an over -reaction to the nightmare of Enron (and company) b/c it didnt let the market itself handle some of the consequences. [and SOX ironically was more of an immediate band-aid to the fear in our markets , rather than a well thought out, impressive framework within which to regulate]. Plus, Paredes is rightfully worried about the US competing with other markets around the world, due to our hostile, litigious system. And honestly right now, we cant afford to be hostile. I think one of the best things we can do to encourage investment in the US is to lighten the regulations. Even for small companies to do small public offerings these days it takes teams and teams of lawyers and tons of money. SOX even gets the little guys ...
And regardless of what you and RS fight about, the SJ Parker comment was pretty damn funny.
Thanks Ash. I think we all have common ground in believing that Sarah Jessica Parker is by far the ugliest of all supposedly attractive celebrities.
Sex in the City is a collective blot on our society's goal of eliminating unnatractive people from public view. It is a slippery slope. We had Silver Spoons, which led to Sex in the City. Then we have The View, in which a group of Harpies (Haselbeck not included) attempt to out-Medusa Medusa in a collective desire to guide the "uglies'" herd mentality as its chief bovines, and whose lone accomplishment, the fist bump, strikes one as amongst the type of activties in which fifth grade girls take pleasure. Need I even delve into the fearsome cesspool that is Ugly Betty. Who will rid me of these troublesome priestesses of unattractiveness?
As far as the SEC, I agree with Paredes that sox are a nightmare. Indeed, I have recently trended towards what I term the "open toed" market trend in which the Achilles heel of deregulation that currently effects the sole of the market is governed by a desire to eliminate the footprint of government regulation in an attempt to shoehorn effective control of the securities marketplace.
In seriousness, I'm more concerned with Obama's hostility to the high CEO/CFO salaries (and a desire to regulate them by government fiat) as indicative of a general hostility to the marketplace and those who run it in general. A hostility and mistrust of the market does far more damage than the SEC (indeed, SOX, a post-Enron creation is indicative of that, to say the least).
And I think we need to fix the FEC before we fix the SEC.
RS
Well I dont even watch TV, but that comment was funny b/c my bros have said the same thing....and I could picture you saying that...ugghhh.. this bar stuff is awful...
Aww... lay off SJP. She looks kinda like a horse, but she's a hot horse. I wouldn't kick her outta bed. As one of my friends has said- Sex and the City is just the "before" of the Golden Girls.
RS: I didn't mean restructuring the UN, I meant building a unified global organization from scratch using safeguards and balances modeled after the failures of the UN. But yes, this solution is still dreamy/naive at best.
ADM: re: Reagan's Razor. The fact that neocons suddenly find a hero in Reagan again shouldn't oblige you to pay heed to his quotes about the world. What something "is" or "isn't" (i.e. 'simple' or 'complex') as u well know can only be defined by you, particularly in the case of a world gloss. I would be more inclined to look into what Reagan is or isn't himself if he were a better actor, which he isn't. Anyway it's a meaningless generalization. All I know about Reagan IS that he had lots to do with linking Conservatives with the Religious Right strictly to get more votes and for this I wish someone would've put a bullet in him. Oh wait...
Jeff,
Regardless of what you think about Reagan's legacy, wishing an assassination attempt had succeeded is wrong. I'm a pretty hard guy to offend, but making John Hinkley cracks is patently offensive.
RS
Jeff: The Reagan quote is just something I stumbled across randomly while doing some reading. It's just entirely indicative of the mindset I've been encountering in the past 5 years since I've stumbled upon some sort of political awareness. It exists on both sides...it just happens to be a worldview that has been in power for 8 years.
RS: Given the shit we say to each other, I am going to outright deny your right to be offended by anything. DENIED. (if you need examples, we can begin with your plan to re-colonize an African nation...despite your requests that I serve as some cabinet minister.)
RS: hah! i apologize if I've offended your delicate sensibilities.
On record: I didn't wish him dead, just to have a bullet in him. An idea you would likely agree with I would think! Making guns readily available (even those loaded with explosive-tipped rounds like the ones used in the Regan assassination attempt) is very important to maintaining a civil, nonviolent society. Thankfully, history has proven my joke obsolete as both a bullet-lodging and his death occurred. Consider it a jape, nothing more.
Off record: Fuck Ronald Regan. Fuck him in the ass with a big rubber dick. *laughing maniacally*
ADM: Indeed. It is my feeling that this worldview is dangerous and unecessary. That's two is's in one statement of seeming fact. I shall rephrase:
This worldview bases itself on Aristotelian logic, which only serves to simplify things with the goal of making them easier to understand. Boiling everything down into simple facts or fact-negations (true/false) can fundamentally unhinge channels of true meaning necessary for clear communication. Just because others (read: other conservatives and other democrats) fall prey to these sorts of fallacies doesn't mean you need to.
True/False semantics in speech led Korybski to write General Semantics, which in part deals with his invention of E-Prime: English without the verb "to be." I enjoy this idea and attempt to practice it in my everyday life. I find that it provides a channel to cut through the bullshit originating in everything from friends to media. But that is just me.
haha. That was awesome.
On to your other comment, I agree completely, though I think previously I just thought of it as: humans have very limited capacities which are narrowed by corporeal perception, which are then funneled through language, which is then used to try and get some other dude to figure out what the hell you're talking about. (e.g., boobies.)
(did I just plagiarize Plato?...didn't mean to)
But what it all comes down to is the fact that we're forced to co-exist with 6 billion people so it's necessary to engage certain ideas in order to "disassemble" them (and ultimately rebuild)...and so you hit a wall at "Black/white" and "True/False" because there's nothing more to disassemble...and at that point I get pissy. And post quotes that embody the "wall," and then Sigh.
In short, bullshit exists: engage or give up.
and can you elaborate on this Korybski thing? I don't think I understand what you mean.
the only solution I've come across (not mine own invention) is so-called Maybe-Logic. This is essentially accepting the "maybe" state- including all major states available to the nervous system (true, false, indeterminate, meaningless etc) are happening at the same time until one becomes more prevalent over another. the trick is not to let this happening overtake all these other states, which can in fact become dominant at a later time.
In any case, this isn't what you were asking about.
General Semantics is right there in your response- the idea that going beyond the nervous system is impossible for both observation and communication is enough of a hindrance without these inefficient word-labels fucking everything up by being placeholders for thoughts and ideas as opposed to evoking the thoughts themselves- one of the fundamental dealings of Korzybski's GS. (Korzybski is the correct spelling, apologies.) He called it something like a "tyranny of language" but I only know of this in relation to logic, thought, and language- i hadn't realized it but according to Wiki it's also a teaching and education methodology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_semantics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-prime
Post a Comment