I have amassed a lot of information today about labels in the American political arena. The writer of this article is WineRev and posted the entry as a comment in 'Crush their spirits' post kos in the Daily Kos website.
" Republican party taken over by the proto-fascists in an unholy combination of neo-con warmongers + theo-con American Taliban + Wall Street greedhounds."
What I am interested about is what ideas these labels serve. How people, being called as such or pursuing their interests under theses banners, are thinking about themselves. What do they profess as they are doing?
An interesting account of Ayn Rand and her capitalism by Devilstower, titled RIP John Galt. Further on, that testimony is based on what Alan Greenspan had confessed about free markets.
In need to preserve these flowing (following) thoughts for future reference.
You are truly content and fulfilled only if you are surrounded by people that are content and fulfilled. Otherwise you are as wretched and miserable as the most wretched and miserable person around you or even in the world over.
Property, the most revered aspect in the monetising societies becomes the haunt of a recluse, a cage, where you hide yourself to spare your feelings and your senses from your most wretched and miserable neighbours, the suburbs, the gated housing schemes, mere ghettos, self-imposed sanctuaries, to ostrich-hide your sensitivities from the wretchedness around you.
The laws against vagrants and beggars for loitering in high streets, your callous efforts to sweep under the proverbial carpet the rubbish you have so aptly and insensibly created. For which you are responsible for, and you must be ashamed about.
Monday, 27 October 2008
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
Credit crunch 'may hit UK growth'. What kind of growth are they talking about?
I read in the BBC website about the poor UK growth would be hit. What kind of growth is that, that individuals should be concerned about?
Economies would never ever change, if they continue to operate within the current monetary framework. Being all engrossed in an insane pursuit of a growth based on imaginary, man-made, artificial 'products', that they could be anything else but products.
Economies invented constructs, hanging over precariously; looming; barely supported on thin pillars; like snakes eating their own tails, with nothing solid underneath to sustain their existence, as they are drawn out of the short-sighted, ignorant insistence, to satisfy the needs of steadfastly prescribed monetary rules.
In states administrations, growth indicators become an obsession. Rigidly adhered administrations would account as growth anything that comes into their clutches, no matter where it is coming from. They would have easily accounted as growth even illicit activities, being these loots of bank robbers, drug profits, black market if it was in their hands and if they did not fear the public outcry.
Still they welcome in their folds anything, that ingenious entrepreneurs out of dragons dens out there, all eager to make a penny, make money for the money, so gave away the once free phone directory enquiry service to a horde of disparate providers, council-run car parking to aggressive greedy operators, with telecom companies charging the tenths of the seconds and lots of other initiatives, a mundane task to go through.
And this is the growth they are after? Growth based on thin air? Growth that draws its profits directly out of the pockets, of individuals in a society, being no different than an additional tax, that individuals could without it. No wonder economies fail. That there is a credit crunch, as individuals are squeezed even further, by what governments regard and relentlessly pursue, as growth.
Economies would never ever change, if they continue to operate within the current monetary framework. Being all engrossed in an insane pursuit of a growth based on imaginary, man-made, artificial 'products', that they could be anything else but products.
Economies invented constructs, hanging over precariously; looming; barely supported on thin pillars; like snakes eating their own tails, with nothing solid underneath to sustain their existence, as they are drawn out of the short-sighted, ignorant insistence, to satisfy the needs of steadfastly prescribed monetary rules.
In states administrations, growth indicators become an obsession. Rigidly adhered administrations would account as growth anything that comes into their clutches, no matter where it is coming from. They would have easily accounted as growth even illicit activities, being these loots of bank robbers, drug profits, black market if it was in their hands and if they did not fear the public outcry.
Still they welcome in their folds anything, that ingenious entrepreneurs out of dragons dens out there, all eager to make a penny, make money for the money, so gave away the once free phone directory enquiry service to a horde of disparate providers, council-run car parking to aggressive greedy operators, with telecom companies charging the tenths of the seconds and lots of other initiatives, a mundane task to go through.
And this is the growth they are after? Growth based on thin air? Growth that draws its profits directly out of the pockets, of individuals in a society, being no different than an additional tax, that individuals could without it. No wonder economies fail. That there is a credit crunch, as individuals are squeezed even further, by what governments regard and relentlessly pursue, as growth.
Friday, 17 October 2008
What does he perceives, a supposed Barack Obama led, USA socialist take over, would do to him?
"I'm really mad" because of "socialists taking over the country,"
That is what a McCain supporter stated, in Waukesha, Wis., GOP rally on Thursday October 9, as I read in YAHOO News website post titled 'McCain booed after trying to calm anti-Obama crowd'.
So socialists led by Barack Obama will take over USA? But that is not what strikes me and why I have singled out that particular phrase from that article. What I want to find out is ....
... What is he mad about? Socialists? And provided that Barack Obama and his followers are actually socialists, and if they are, then what kind of socialists. What then these socialists would do? Take over the country? And what would they do to the country? Or, is it not, more precisely, what would they do to him, or, what he perceives they will do to him.
In his mind, this thought is overriding, powerful to the point that he completely ignores the state his country is already in, a result unopposedly attributed to GOP administration, the country in the grip of a capitalist takeover. Yet, this is still not a matter to consider about, as easily or not, someone, or he himself could argue at length and probably successfully for the merits of capitalist supremacy, without making any difference to the route USA politics and subsequent administration takes.
What it matters, is why he is overwhelmed with anger as many other GOP supporters and why it seems, that the republicans as a party are not able to control. To my mind this attitude comes down to ignorance, a state of mind where none or very little of the properties of certain arrangements (the socialist in this case) are known, where the mind gets loose, imagination grows wild, rampant and confused.
That is what a McCain supporter stated, in Waukesha, Wis., GOP rally on Thursday October 9, as I read in YAHOO News website post titled 'McCain booed after trying to calm anti-Obama crowd'.
So socialists led by Barack Obama will take over USA? But that is not what strikes me and why I have singled out that particular phrase from that article. What I want to find out is ....
... What is he mad about? Socialists? And provided that Barack Obama and his followers are actually socialists, and if they are, then what kind of socialists. What then these socialists would do? Take over the country? And what would they do to the country? Or, is it not, more precisely, what would they do to him, or, what he perceives they will do to him.
In his mind, this thought is overriding, powerful to the point that he completely ignores the state his country is already in, a result unopposedly attributed to GOP administration, the country in the grip of a capitalist takeover. Yet, this is still not a matter to consider about, as easily or not, someone, or he himself could argue at length and probably successfully for the merits of capitalist supremacy, without making any difference to the route USA politics and subsequent administration takes.
What it matters, is why he is overwhelmed with anger as many other GOP supporters and why it seems, that the republicans as a party are not able to control. To my mind this attitude comes down to ignorance, a state of mind where none or very little of the properties of certain arrangements (the socialist in this case) are known, where the mind gets loose, imagination grows wild, rampant and confused.
Saturday, 27 September 2008
The leaders a.k.a shepperds and the mindless, self-indulgent flock?
...shepherds leading the sheep, mindless self-indulgent flock that needs herding .... tending for the flock out of their benevolent nature
.. pastoral care for the poor in the mind, a philosophy that permeates the fabric of british and not only societies
... distorting ... that, what has been established as given order in societies at large, is out of the struggle of the collective will of individuals in a society, fought hard and gained and not given out of the good heart of those in charge or out of the inspired acts of a handful of individuals. A fallacy that is continuously fed by media
....a trend, remnant of the past, a deep-rooted abhorrence for the nature of the human individual, one that endlessly separates individuals into categories, the worthy and the unworthy, the aristocrats and the peasants
....constantly rob the achievements of the collective will attributing it to this or that inspired individual, diminishing the value of the rise in consciousness in each and every individual
....continually bombard individuals with messages that what they are, what they can amount to, is just a mindless herd and would not be any better
....leaders that woefully ignore that what they can accomplish is what the established collective will of the individuals in a society allows them to ... are permitted to
.... what they have or will accomplish is only made possible as the individuals in a society have made it so
... claim unashamedly all the laurels and undeserved gains along with unfathomed unscrupulous rewards
....humanity's rise a collective effort that the names attached to it, have very little to do with it
....a practice deeply rooted in the psyche of state and governments
....the place writhes with leaders. From schools, where headteachers are chosen out of the ranks, which their only token is that they have brilliant crowd managing skills, herding skills mostly fizzled out in the epitome of British society. The formal attire, school uniform and tie, an insane insistence but nevertheless engineered along the lines of british society's master plan, glorifying the form to the detriment of substance, it is what you wear and how you look and not who you are, that matters.
....there are a lot of flocks out there that they need herding
.....have the television and other media to provide for
.....immerse them heavily into every form of indulgence
.. pastoral care for the poor in the mind, a philosophy that permeates the fabric of british and not only societies
... distorting ... that, what has been established as given order in societies at large, is out of the struggle of the collective will of individuals in a society, fought hard and gained and not given out of the good heart of those in charge or out of the inspired acts of a handful of individuals. A fallacy that is continuously fed by media
....a trend, remnant of the past, a deep-rooted abhorrence for the nature of the human individual, one that endlessly separates individuals into categories, the worthy and the unworthy, the aristocrats and the peasants
....constantly rob the achievements of the collective will attributing it to this or that inspired individual, diminishing the value of the rise in consciousness in each and every individual
....continually bombard individuals with messages that what they are, what they can amount to, is just a mindless herd and would not be any better
....leaders that woefully ignore that what they can accomplish is what the established collective will of the individuals in a society allows them to ... are permitted to
.... what they have or will accomplish is only made possible as the individuals in a society have made it so
... claim unashamedly all the laurels and undeserved gains along with unfathomed unscrupulous rewards
....humanity's rise a collective effort that the names attached to it, have very little to do with it
....a practice deeply rooted in the psyche of state and governments
....the place writhes with leaders. From schools, where headteachers are chosen out of the ranks, which their only token is that they have brilliant crowd managing skills, herding skills mostly fizzled out in the epitome of British society. The formal attire, school uniform and tie, an insane insistence but nevertheless engineered along the lines of british society's master plan, glorifying the form to the detriment of substance, it is what you wear and how you look and not who you are, that matters.
....there are a lot of flocks out there that they need herding
.....have the television and other media to provide for
.....immerse them heavily into every form of indulgence
Thursday, 25 September 2008
Save the banks. George Bush declares.
Save the banks? What for? What is to save there that is worthwhile for the majority of the individuals in USA, and possibly the world over? Or to save the banks so they can continue unhindered to amass insane profits?
Mr. Bush said, that the bank rescue package is
"For the financial security of every American"
but very few give him credit, as credit nowadays is in short supply, that what Mr. Bush says, is what he means. What it actually is going to happen.
All this vast sum of money pledged, to save the banks will be used to furnish the enormous appetites of a limited bunch of executives to a great part, and very little, if any at all, will be channeled to maintain what is worth for, for the people as such. Or what is actually is going to be channeled down, is misery and hardship, which unlike credit the US administration has ample quantities in reserve.
As quite a lot of these monies will be used to feed scavenging companies, which like vultures encircle the carcass ready for the kill to pick up rich spoils, as this report suggests.
All the executives responsible for the fall would have already built up substantial nest eggs, unscathed and untouched by the whole shambles, even used to short-sell their own stock, (what kind of entrepreneurs are they after all, not to foresee and take advantage of an opportunity), and the only people to suffer, are the people hapless recipients of the so-called services to the public banks render. The only ones really affected and hit hard, their stories untold, since their cases are not mass media material, their credit crunch-busting parties would not sell.
And what else could you expect from a state run by the same bunch of individuals that have similar ulterior objectives, and nothing in common and it is not even in their mind, the welfare of the individuals that their services is/was supposed to provide for.
Both of these groups of people common objective is to sustain growth, an insane insistence on fallacious indicators applied in a fragmented manner for each of the companies, based strictly on the wares the company offers for, and the profits they make, isolated from the economy at large. As if the aggregate of all these individual growth figures, a strictly monetary approach, has any grounds, and it does reflect growth that matters, for the individuals in a society at large.
A growth that is not based upon the real needs of individuals in a society, but the needs of voracious companies to furnish all the short-sighted fragmented economic indicators and figures, overindulge and bathe in their sunshine (from UV-lamps more likely, artificial).
As each company and the people responsible for their running lack the ability to see beyond their company's needs, have a fragmented, distorted view of the economy, highly biased by their own limited perspective, ignoring all else.
All the monies certainly would end up in coffers of already established entrepreneurs-individuals, a result of the structure of the system and the mentality of the individuals involved. And states, overrun by a horde of people whose their needs are highly exaggerated, unreal and superficial, detached by the needs of the human individual.
By all means ample help should be given to maintain the service banks provide, to maintain the infrastructure necessary but never with that bunch of people in charge and not with the same mentality. With a different focus.
A focus not based upon the fallacy that the leaders and not the development of individuals, empowered to take on, in their hands, humanity's affairs, all in control of their lives. Agent-based societies to provide the amenable conditions. Conditions that exist in, and are part of, of each and every individual
Societies that evolve by the dynamic of change developed within each individual, where the presence or not of a leader is purely coincidental.
Societies will take their path, follow their trajectory, regardless temporary setbacks emanating out of external manipulations by unscrupulous individuals, powered by ulterior motives.
Societies where each and every individual within their bosom and amidst their ranks, matters for. What societies should be for.
Mr. Bush said, that the bank rescue package is
"For the financial security of every American"
but very few give him credit, as credit nowadays is in short supply, that what Mr. Bush says, is what he means. What it actually is going to happen.
All this vast sum of money pledged, to save the banks will be used to furnish the enormous appetites of a limited bunch of executives to a great part, and very little, if any at all, will be channeled to maintain what is worth for, for the people as such. Or what is actually is going to be channeled down, is misery and hardship, which unlike credit the US administration has ample quantities in reserve.
As quite a lot of these monies will be used to feed scavenging companies, which like vultures encircle the carcass ready for the kill to pick up rich spoils, as this report suggests.
All the executives responsible for the fall would have already built up substantial nest eggs, unscathed and untouched by the whole shambles, even used to short-sell their own stock, (what kind of entrepreneurs are they after all, not to foresee and take advantage of an opportunity), and the only people to suffer, are the people hapless recipients of the so-called services to the public banks render. The only ones really affected and hit hard, their stories untold, since their cases are not mass media material, their credit crunch-busting parties would not sell.
And what else could you expect from a state run by the same bunch of individuals that have similar ulterior objectives, and nothing in common and it is not even in their mind, the welfare of the individuals that their services is/was supposed to provide for.
Both of these groups of people common objective is to sustain growth, an insane insistence on fallacious indicators applied in a fragmented manner for each of the companies, based strictly on the wares the company offers for, and the profits they make, isolated from the economy at large. As if the aggregate of all these individual growth figures, a strictly monetary approach, has any grounds, and it does reflect growth that matters, for the individuals in a society at large.
A growth that is not based upon the real needs of individuals in a society, but the needs of voracious companies to furnish all the short-sighted fragmented economic indicators and figures, overindulge and bathe in their sunshine (from UV-lamps more likely, artificial).
As each company and the people responsible for their running lack the ability to see beyond their company's needs, have a fragmented, distorted view of the economy, highly biased by their own limited perspective, ignoring all else.
All the monies certainly would end up in coffers of already established entrepreneurs-individuals, a result of the structure of the system and the mentality of the individuals involved. And states, overrun by a horde of people whose their needs are highly exaggerated, unreal and superficial, detached by the needs of the human individual.
By all means ample help should be given to maintain the service banks provide, to maintain the infrastructure necessary but never with that bunch of people in charge and not with the same mentality. With a different focus.
A focus not based upon the fallacy that the leaders and not the development of individuals, empowered to take on, in their hands, humanity's affairs, all in control of their lives. Agent-based societies to provide the amenable conditions. Conditions that exist in, and are part of, of each and every individual
Societies that evolve by the dynamic of change developed within each individual, where the presence or not of a leader is purely coincidental.
Societies will take their path, follow their trajectory, regardless temporary setbacks emanating out of external manipulations by unscrupulous individuals, powered by ulterior motives.
Societies where each and every individual within their bosom and amidst their ranks, matters for. What societies should be for.
Thursday, 12 June 2008
'Legal and binding'? What is the value of that expression.
The following statement was included in a letter of Ross and Liddell company, whose primary business is to act as a factor of tenement properties in Scotland
"I must repeat myself in saying that indeed property in Scotland is governed by a Deed of Conditions which were initially drawn up when the building was erected. Albeit this was a number of years ago until such times as the government introduce some sort of new legislation to alter this, as Managing Agents we are obliged to abide by them and enforce their conditions upon proprietors."
And the building(s) in question tenement flats and the year most of them were erected is the 1900s or maybe the twilight years of 19th century. On the grounds of this legislation, Ross and Liddell, which presumably has acted as factor since then, has been charging proprietors buildings insurance premiums, against the will and the freedom of proprietors to choose from where to buy a service product.
Of course someone can not ignore the fact that the buildings insurance is a modern product of the insurance industry and certainly not as old as some of the tenements, as well as the legislation they quote, to justify their action, which makes their claim dubious. However, that is not the point I want to make.
What is disconcerting is the appeal of the author of the letter, an employee of Ross and Liddell, that this action constitutes a legal and binding process as the paragraph below states.
"As you will be aware, property in Scotland is governed by a Deed of Conditions, being a legal and binding document drawn up when the building was erected."
What is the value of the expression 'legal and binding?'
Legal to what avail, binding for what purpose? The only legal 'legal' aspect there is, is what promotes and fosters unity and trust among the individuals in a society. In what sense legislation, like what Ross and Liddell abides to, where its main goal is to protect the businesses at the expense of the individuals that seek their services, promotes and fosters unity in a society? Business-centered government instead of people-centered?
By looking in any old history books, in search for the origins of the modern states, the only or main reason that governments were brought into existence, was to guarantee the contracts, for merchants, banks, landowners and any other such individuals. And still is.
If not all the legislation at least a great part, if not all modern states at least a great many, its or their sole or primary objective is about protecting the integrity of the contract, its their cornerstone of their existence.
Guaranteeing contracts, meaning securing the profits for business, at the expense of the services provided to individuals. Services as a public good for individuals to enjoy. The contract elevated to a point where it is disjointed from the service is supposed to provide. Becoming the goal and not the means in the service provision, to the point that legislation prescribes that it needs to go on, despite and against whether the service is required any longer. Individuals forced to adhere to contracts by the 'legal and binding legislation' even if they have no use of the service the contract is for, to fork out money for a service they cease to be interested in.
Strict adherence to contracts enable businesses to extort monies from individuals without providing any service. Monies milked out of individuals with nothing in return. No more no less, business and those involved in them, are nothing but parasites. Any growth in the business or the economy at large is parasitic growth. A kind of growth detrimental to the health of a society, and is anything but 'binding'.
Contracts should be based on mutual trust between the parties engaged and in service of the service provided, otherwise it will continue to breed parasites and harm the social fibre of the society.
Talk about democracy, governments of states elected by the people for the people. Anything but. Politicians should change their scope of governing. Aim towards providing a people-centred government. If Mr Brown, and other politicians wonder about the persistent indifference of individuals in politics should seek their answers there.
Businesses can still survive amidst a climate where the service they provide is a priority, instead of the profits they will amass in their coffers. A penny more, in anyone's pocket, worths nothing if it is not given freely by a satisfied customer.
If businesses do not adapt, they simply should not exist.
"I must repeat myself in saying that indeed property in Scotland is governed by a Deed of Conditions which were initially drawn up when the building was erected. Albeit this was a number of years ago until such times as the government introduce some sort of new legislation to alter this, as Managing Agents we are obliged to abide by them and enforce their conditions upon proprietors."
And the building(s) in question tenement flats and the year most of them were erected is the 1900s or maybe the twilight years of 19th century. On the grounds of this legislation, Ross and Liddell, which presumably has acted as factor since then, has been charging proprietors buildings insurance premiums, against the will and the freedom of proprietors to choose from where to buy a service product.
Of course someone can not ignore the fact that the buildings insurance is a modern product of the insurance industry and certainly not as old as some of the tenements, as well as the legislation they quote, to justify their action, which makes their claim dubious. However, that is not the point I want to make.
What is disconcerting is the appeal of the author of the letter, an employee of Ross and Liddell, that this action constitutes a legal and binding process as the paragraph below states.
"As you will be aware, property in Scotland is governed by a Deed of Conditions, being a legal and binding document drawn up when the building was erected."
What is the value of the expression 'legal and binding?'
Legal to what avail, binding for what purpose? The only legal 'legal' aspect there is, is what promotes and fosters unity and trust among the individuals in a society. In what sense legislation, like what Ross and Liddell abides to, where its main goal is to protect the businesses at the expense of the individuals that seek their services, promotes and fosters unity in a society? Business-centered government instead of people-centered?
By looking in any old history books, in search for the origins of the modern states, the only or main reason that governments were brought into existence, was to guarantee the contracts, for merchants, banks, landowners and any other such individuals. And still is.
If not all the legislation at least a great part, if not all modern states at least a great many, its or their sole or primary objective is about protecting the integrity of the contract, its their cornerstone of their existence.
Guaranteeing contracts, meaning securing the profits for business, at the expense of the services provided to individuals. Services as a public good for individuals to enjoy. The contract elevated to a point where it is disjointed from the service is supposed to provide. Becoming the goal and not the means in the service provision, to the point that legislation prescribes that it needs to go on, despite and against whether the service is required any longer. Individuals forced to adhere to contracts by the 'legal and binding legislation' even if they have no use of the service the contract is for, to fork out money for a service they cease to be interested in.
Strict adherence to contracts enable businesses to extort monies from individuals without providing any service. Monies milked out of individuals with nothing in return. No more no less, business and those involved in them, are nothing but parasites. Any growth in the business or the economy at large is parasitic growth. A kind of growth detrimental to the health of a society, and is anything but 'binding'.
Contracts should be based on mutual trust between the parties engaged and in service of the service provided, otherwise it will continue to breed parasites and harm the social fibre of the society.
Talk about democracy, governments of states elected by the people for the people. Anything but. Politicians should change their scope of governing. Aim towards providing a people-centred government. If Mr Brown, and other politicians wonder about the persistent indifference of individuals in politics should seek their answers there.
Businesses can still survive amidst a climate where the service they provide is a priority, instead of the profits they will amass in their coffers. A penny more, in anyone's pocket, worths nothing if it is not given freely by a satisfied customer.
If businesses do not adapt, they simply should not exist.
Tuesday, 15 April 2008
Black swans are always present. Either you choose to ignore or you choose to notice.
Lack of understanding, or I would say of an unwillingness to heed, clear messages shouted out deafeningly in ears which lay mesmerized to the songs of beguiling sirens, oblivious to their imminent doom.
Reporting on the world economy
"Near-zero borrowing costs are the source of speculation since they allow investors to borrow cheaply in yen and take punts in countries where interest rates are higher."
out of thin air, nothing productive, making huge profits out of nowhere, precariously balancing on glass stilts. Is that the growth world economy relies upon, thrives on? Run by speculators?
Created a world of make believe, a bubble afloat a vibrant world, powered by inertia alone, a direct reflection of the so-called economic forces, and have the affront to be called investors.
Black swans? Not seen, unpredicted, your eye. Your eye has not seen them. You can see what you choose to see. A matter of scope. You choose to ignore, but it is there.
A for randomness let's borrow the words from freakonomics
"I keep writing here and there that my definition of randomness is as follows: incomplete understanding or incomplete information."
and
"So the degree of randomness is observer dependent."
And the point is, you are either in knowledge of your incomplete understanding or the fact of incomplete information, or not. And further a matter of choice whether you acknowledge your knowledge or not.
Flap-strapped around the eyes, like cart-pulling cattle, restricting views of the going-ons in the world, in search for black swans. Might as well be blind-folded. Fail to notice the obvious, unwilling to take heed of even the mythoplasy that spawned the term. Black swans did not appear out of nowhere, they were already there, in Australia or wherever.
Likewise, the black swans of today's world are there, but are not given the attention they demand. It is not that they are unpredictable, it is more like the inability, for the sake of want, to predict the chances their predicted values, in the minds of the world's human individuals, stand to sweep you away, fed up of the hogwash they are fed daily, trivializing lives, unwilling pawns to insane insignificant games.
Insignificant as they offer nothing in fullfiling the aspirations of humankind and insane as they are still allowed to exist.
Reporting on the world economy
"Near-zero borrowing costs are the source of speculation since they allow investors to borrow cheaply in yen and take punts in countries where interest rates are higher."
out of thin air, nothing productive, making huge profits out of nowhere, precariously balancing on glass stilts. Is that the growth world economy relies upon, thrives on? Run by speculators?
Created a world of make believe, a bubble afloat a vibrant world, powered by inertia alone, a direct reflection of the so-called economic forces, and have the affront to be called investors.
Black swans? Not seen, unpredicted, your eye. Your eye has not seen them. You can see what you choose to see. A matter of scope. You choose to ignore, but it is there.
A for randomness let's borrow the words from freakonomics
"I keep writing here and there that my definition of randomness is as follows: incomplete understanding or incomplete information."
and
"So the degree of randomness is observer dependent."
And the point is, you are either in knowledge of your incomplete understanding or the fact of incomplete information, or not. And further a matter of choice whether you acknowledge your knowledge or not.
Flap-strapped around the eyes, like cart-pulling cattle, restricting views of the going-ons in the world, in search for black swans. Might as well be blind-folded. Fail to notice the obvious, unwilling to take heed of even the mythoplasy that spawned the term. Black swans did not appear out of nowhere, they were already there, in Australia or wherever.
Likewise, the black swans of today's world are there, but are not given the attention they demand. It is not that they are unpredictable, it is more like the inability, for the sake of want, to predict the chances their predicted values, in the minds of the world's human individuals, stand to sweep you away, fed up of the hogwash they are fed daily, trivializing lives, unwilling pawns to insane insignificant games.
Insignificant as they offer nothing in fullfiling the aspirations of humankind and insane as they are still allowed to exist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)