“Life contains but two tragedies. One is not to get your heart’s desire; the other is to get it.”
―
Socrates
Or maybe more like stock options and puts ie
Get what your heart desires=> buy call=>market goes up=> good to you, collect upside minus call premium
Get not what your heart desires=> sell call=> market stays flat or down=> good to you, collect call premium
Get what your heart detests=> buy put=> market goes down=> mildly bad, lose call premium but not shirt
Get not what your heart detests=> sell put=> market flat or goes up=> good to you, collect put premium
Where heart desires implies market goes up
and heart detests implies market goes down
Saturday, July 9, 2016
Friday, July 8, 2016
Blame the pigs
Under funding resources to a group of people will lead to a different set of people. It will lead to an anger from the underfunded which will lead to a mistrust of the system. A group who mistrusts the system will lead to deviant behaviors leading to a mechanism to put the deviants back into expected behavior. This mechanism is law enforcement. (Law enforcement-LE is any system by which some members of society act in an organized manner to enforce the law by discovering, deterring, rehabilitating, or punishing people who violate the rules and norms governing that society.) When law enforcement is constantly doing the same tasks, which are pointless as they cannot "cure" the behaviors, frustration and shortcuts are taken by some members of LE. Along with the underfunded group disliking LE, what it deems the cause of its plight, multiple people within the fully funded group take this position, even though they are ultimately part of the plight of the underfunded.
Leaders in the underfunded voice revolutionary opinions to the gullible, which they themselves have little consequences to, to keep power and deflect scrutiny from their own self enriching behavior. They use this platform mostly, knowingly or not, to benefit themselves The righteous advice,in an affluent society, would be twofold; a) lobby and educate the fully funded to ensure a more equal society b) encourage the underfunded to zero deviant behavior as well as reinvigorate traditional moral values.
Leaders in the underfunded voice revolutionary opinions to the gullible, which they themselves have little consequences to, to keep power and deflect scrutiny from their own self enriching behavior. They use this platform mostly, knowingly or not, to benefit themselves The righteous advice,in an affluent society, would be twofold; a) lobby and educate the fully funded to ensure a more equal society b) encourage the underfunded to zero deviant behavior as well as reinvigorate traditional moral values.
Saturday, July 2, 2016
Fooling yourself sort of
What you think becomes what you believe and ultimately what you do which leads to who you become. THINK->BELIEVE->DO->BECOME. Fooling yourself properly means garbage in hence garbage out. If you believe, without the universe telling you otherwise. the garbage that is going in is "true" then the garbage out MUST be true. And believing the garbage in can never be absolute as it'd require one to cross Hume's fork. (footnote below)
"Hume's fork is an explanation, developed by later philosophers, of David Hume's aggressive, 1730s division of "relations of ideas" from "matters of fact and real existence".[1] On the necessary versus contingent (concerning reality), the a priori versus a posteriori (concerning knowledge), and the analytic versus synthetic (concerning language), truths relating ideas (abstract) all align on one side (necessary, a priori, analytic), whereas truths on actualities (concrete) always align on the other side (contingent, a posteriori, synthetic).[1] "
"
The first distinction is between two different areas of human study:
The results claimed by Hume as consequences of his fork are drastic. According to him, relations of ideas can be proved with certainty (by using other relations of ideas), however, they don't really mean anything about the world. Since they don't mean anything about the world, relations of ideas cannot be used to prove matters of fact. Because of this, matters of fact have no certainty and therefore cannot be used to prove anything. Only certain things can be used to prove other things for certain, but only things about the world can be used to prove other things about the world. But since we can't cross the fork, nothing is both certain and about the world, only one or the other, and so it is impossible to prove something about the world with certainty.
If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.[8] - An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
"Hume's fork is an explanation, developed by later philosophers, of David Hume's aggressive, 1730s division of "relations of ideas" from "matters of fact and real existence".[1] On the necessary versus contingent (concerning reality), the a priori versus a posteriori (concerning knowledge), and the analytic versus synthetic (concerning language), truths relating ideas (abstract) all align on one side (necessary, a priori, analytic), whereas truths on actualities (concrete) always align on the other side (contingent, a posteriori, synthetic).[1] "
"
The first distinction is between two different areas of human study:
- All the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas, and Matters of fact. Of the first kind are the sciences of Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic ... [which are]
discoverable by the mere operation of thought ... Matters of fact,
which are the second object of human reason, are not ascertained in the
same manner; nor is our evidence of their truth, however great, of a
like nature with the foregoing.
- Statements about ideas. These are analytic, necessary statements that are knowable a priori.
- Statements about the world. These are synthetic, contingent, and knowable a posteriori.
The results claimed by Hume as consequences of his fork are drastic. According to him, relations of ideas can be proved with certainty (by using other relations of ideas), however, they don't really mean anything about the world. Since they don't mean anything about the world, relations of ideas cannot be used to prove matters of fact. Because of this, matters of fact have no certainty and therefore cannot be used to prove anything. Only certain things can be used to prove other things for certain, but only things about the world can be used to prove other things about the world. But since we can't cross the fork, nothing is both certain and about the world, only one or the other, and so it is impossible to prove something about the world with certainty.
If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.[8] - An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
Noun plus Y vs with Noun
So if one were supposedly teaching someone of the subtleties of language, who never or very rarely spoke the language, we'd expect odd but correct encounters. Take for example the notion that adding a Y to a noun makes it an adjective, a noun describer. Cloud, a noun to cloudy, a describer of the sky. Dirt, a noun to dirty, a describer to a noun.
If I were to ask, how's the weather? Possibilities would be local weather? Wind speed? humidity? Pressure? A correct answer of 'cloudy' answers how does the sky look but really tells no one of the correct answer to the initial weather question. And why 'cloudy'? Why not 'with cloud' ?
If I were to ask, how's the weather? Possibilities would be local weather? Wind speed? humidity? Pressure? A correct answer of 'cloudy' answers how does the sky look but really tells no one of the correct answer to the initial weather question. And why 'cloudy'? Why not 'with cloud' ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
