A complete theory of economics
The bane of economics as an intellectual endeavour so far has been its own history.
In entrepreneurial circles there's this observation that the only thing that can sink a good team with a good idea is a bad revenue source early oni, The exact same was true of most sciences, chemistry took a while to separate from alchemy, math needed some time to break free of religion, medicine began as the finer points of the work of a barberii and so on. All these divorces happened centuries ago, but there remain plenty of valuable, upstanding, productive members of the ideal chorus trapped in ungodly matrimonial arrangements with swamp creatures. Or at least so we hope. Such is the case of poor psychology, to this day bogged down by the unwelcome and frankly odorous "contributions" of thousands upon untold thousands of women too lazy to strip, too ugly to act and too stupid to beg.iii
While it may be sad to consider the fate of all these unfortunate trapped souls, sparks off the eternal flame, wasting away quietly, nevertheless this is not a sad day, but a happy occasion. A very happy occasion indeed, for we have gathered here today to witness the separation in holy sense of Economics and Management.
"An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations", Adam Smith's opus, is their marriage certificate. We're burning it today, all of it, for it is useless. Its title is also quite illustrative of the problem : there's no teleology in economy, yet Smith presumes so. Much like trying to answer as to the utility of the Sun's existence, as if such a thing can ever beiv, Smith would make "nations" (ie, his king) wealthy. This is in no sense the preoccupation of economics, anymore than it is the business of mathematics to make the reader smart, or the problem of medicine to make the subject beautifulv. This slag has to be removed, so let's.
Economy is made out of three elements : Bitcoin, the WoT and #bitcoin-assets. This, at the most basic, most functional, canonical level is what an economy is : the marriage of a medium of exchange, of a punishment gazette and of a public forum. Let's go into detail for each of these, to understand them.
A medium of exchange is any one thing that displays the following properties :
- it is divisible, while the divisions are fungible,
- it is transferable,
- it conserves over time.
That's it, that's strictly all it takes. Items as diverse as gold (a metal), seashells (an organic byproduct), fiats (trademarks) or Bitcoin (a cryptocoin) all satisfy these, and as such can work as mediums of exchange. Since in most cases their competing uses were neglectablevi in practice, the intuitive notion formed in the heads of observant barbers that "currency is fundamental for economy" or that "wealth is based on currency". This is exactly backwards : economy and wealth are fundamental to the item that happens to be used as medium of exchange, because without them... it wouldn't be so used. And so it would be used less. And so it wouldn't matter. You know... just like the press is fundamental for democracy.
Notably, economies exist in places where any of these particular mediums of exchange won't reach. Cell biology is still an exercise in economy, and its medium of exchange is the ADP/ATP cycle. The Sun, like any star, works on an economy system based on elements, chiefly Hydrogen. Cigarettes are the medium of exchange in prison today, but before today was invented they often used saltvii, cocoa beans, barley...
A punishment gazette is any one thing that displays the following properties :
- it is accessible,
- it is permanent,
That's it, that's strictly all it takes. It matters not whether this is an array of pikes lining the highways, with the punished therein impaled, at the disposition of the crows, or a set of scrolls detailing the behaviour of famous people. Just as long as it can be inspected as needed, and can not be ever modifiedviii, the item is a punishment gazette.
A public forum is any one thing that displays the following properties :
- identifies participants,
- permits the conveyance of information
- associates information with identity
Again, this is it. This is all that's needed. There's no requirement against "censorship" : they who can't, by force of either persuasion or arms acquire access to the forum can not be part of the economy.ix Also perhaps worthy of note, the nonsensical "anonymous" derpagex clueless folk are so fond of is an attack on economy.xi
What an economy is not ? Chiefly, it is not a teleology. As far as economy is concerned, it is perfectly indifferent if the entire planet is arid, with average precipitation of one milimeter a year and soil temperatures in the high 50s, or on the contrary incredibly wet. Much like you know, it's indifferent for mathematics if the number 6 is "big" or "small", much like it's indifferent to medicine that in your own opinion a diabetes diagnostic is inappropriate for a nice fellow, upstanding citizen and good father such as yourself.
Economy is not capable, nor should it be abused to try and solve fundamentally political problems, which are best addressed with the traditional tools of addressing political problems : religion. In this sense, the gradual abandonment by "global warming" proponents of economic and other faux-scientific arguments in favour of more direct statements of their religious views is both necessary and unavoidable. There's no "economic" argument for a ban on smoking any more than there's an economic argument for an obligation to smoke, universal or otherwise. There's no "economics of inequality", or "of poverty", and there's no such thing as "sustainable". In short... nothing that preoccupies the self-styled "economists" of today has anything whatsoever to do with economics, much like the preoccupations of barbers 500 years ago were, by and large, barely medicine in any sense.
The beautiful interplay of the punishment gazette and the public forum, as implemented in the WoT and the #bitcoin-assets channel, allowing defense against what's in isolation the silver bullet for any WoT, ie a Sybil should be instructive as to what we are looking at here, in this trinity.
Generally, when people speak of the revolutionary capacity of Bitcoin they use pars pro toto Bitcoin to discuss the whole package, mostly because the importance of the punishment gazette is poorly understood (most people not having any sort of experience leading groups of people) and because the importance of the public forum is dwarved by its ease of deployment and ubiquity (what is the Internet after all if not the superset of all public forums ?). It is important to bear in mind however that Bitcoin is merely a tool, that what we're truly interested in is creating - for the first time in perhaps as long as two centuries - an actual, working economy, and that they who would either defend or attack this goal need to look further than just at the coin itself.
Bitcoin, the WoT and #bitcoin-assets, learn them, understand them, use them. This is the dawn of a new world.
———- Because it will get them doing things they shouldn't be doing. A similar situation is found in sciences, where it's the case that a young smart future researcher does not get to pick his field. Instead, he is picked by random chance as it were, as he'll pursue that one field in which he meets some early success. Something as trivial as an experiment working out will seal a lifetime, irrespective of other considerations, because the bias to do that which can be done rather than die is strong in all living things. [↩]
- Ah, che bel vivere, che bel piacere per un barbiere di qualità! Di qualità! [↩]
- Yes, I'm aware that this seems rather random. This would be strictly due to the fact that you've not given it any thought. Roughly any female of roughly any age could do well as a stripper, all that's required is that she not be lazy, because working out is exactly that : hard work. That aside, I've seen 50yos making more than your average redditard, with the caveat that she made it in a night and they don't make it in a month. I suppose I don't need to explain how the ugly/acting pair works, especially if you've seen Daisy Diamond, with its immortal
No, you have to give me another chance. Give me a chance! You have to give me chance to show what I can do. Give me something I can work with. Looking sexy isn't acting! Give me a chance. I can play any role better than anyone else! I can be anything!
Actually, that was quite good, only we're not looking for a psycho.
So what's left ? Stupidity/begging ? Filantropica. [↩]
- It can not. Utility is a symbol defined in the context of the owner of the item examined and there only. Further, the owner of any item is he who can destroy it. For these reasons I can consider the utility of my slavegirls, but you can not consider the utility of your wife. You can, obviously, consider the utility to you of the arrangement you have with the woman who is your wife, but this is an entirely different discussion. [↩]
- Barbers, of course, are in the business of making the paying customer "beautiful" in some very mechanical, rule-driven ways. Socially acceptable, is more the term, and if you sometimes wonder why psychiatry is in such dire straits in the US, or why the overmedication trend, or why pretty much the only thing that works there is "emergency medicine", which is to say stopping bleeds and mending fractures... well... it'd be because the US understanding of medicine is not all that well removed from barbery. [↩]
- Sure, you can collect shells, for your own reasons, or make gold into jewelry, or keep fiat currency to wallpaper your house like Weimar Germans. [↩]
- In those places where enough salt in the diet was a problem, which is what allowed early governments to finance themselves by taxing salt in the first place. [↩]
- 1984 attacks this fundamental property of the economy by proposing an alternative universe in which punishment gazettes are [conventionally] impossible. This is fundamentally the reason why the alternative reality therein described never can nor ever could become actual reality : somehow, somewhere the government is keeping its books or else it can't continue to exist. Those can be found, the same principle works to limit a drug cartel or a government, as Snowden well illustrated. [↩]
- This was, historically, the means through which Roman citizens, which is to say white males, assured their supremacy over their various chattels, such as goats, wives or Nigerians. [↩]
- Why exactly it's nonsensical is already covered, in Anonimity, or the urban versus rural dispute. [↩]
- Sort-of like the one explored in 1984, except centered on rendering the public forum inoperable. Consider this footnote an extension of Why I nixed p2p, colored coins and all that jazz into "anonymous" and "trustless" bs. That the medium of exchange works well if it's "anonymous" and "trustless", which really should be properly stated as above, ie that it conserves, does not mean the public forum can be either. Different things, different properties required. [↩]
Tuesday, 22 April 2014
Reminds me of that scene in "Gypsy": (Roughly paraphrasing)
Loise: I couldn't be a stripper, I'm afraid I haven't got any talent.
Stripper 1: Strippin's easy, all you need is no talent.
Stripper 2: Excuse me, having no talent ain't enough. What you need is something to make your strip special.
Tuesday, 22 April 2014
Lol I guess this I'll have to see.
Tuesday, 22 April 2014
What's the analogue of the WOT and of #bitcoin-assets in the "economy" of the sun?
Tuesday, 22 April 2014
The status of elements as H, He, O etc for the first, the [possiblity of] movement of particles for the second, I would say.
Tuesday, 22 April 2014
So the sun's "public forum" would be the common physical environment within which the elements interact, and its "punishment gazette" would be the intrinsic properties of the elements, in virtue of which the types of interaction and their outcomes are specified?
If so, then here's where things would get ontologically interesting: what's the being of the punishment gazette, given that it's just a heap of the properties of each interacting entity, and thus has no formal unity? It's not as if there's some sort of list, compiled and embedded somewhere in the sun, that comprises the gazette. Yet if the properties of the interacting entities are what function to determine their interactions (i.e. so that entity x is "not allowed" - not capable of - affecting entity y in such-and-such a way), then it's clear that the gazette has a perfectly real expression in the sun's economy.
At this point I'd follow John Poinsot (1632) and suggest that its being is merely intelligible (not material), yet real. It's a tricky point to defend - similar to the thought in your previous two posts about essences being unmediated - yet central to any metaphysics that hopes to avoid the mess that is the modern era (and central to your thesis above).
A merely intelligible entity would be embodied in the sun yet not materially present in any way. Its nature would be experienceable by us, thanks to intellect, due to its logical function in the sun's "economy".
Am I interpreting your thoughts correctly?
Tuesday, 22 April 2014
This is a weak formulation, because it presumes a distinction where there may well be none (ie, between the "physical environment within which interaction occurs" and "intrinsic properties of the elements" - it's not clear these two would be different things or why exactly.
The canonical formulation as per my economic theory would be that the Sun's public forum would be the medium which allows for the elementary particles to be a certain particle for other particles ; to broadcast this being to other particles in some sort of form discernible to them, and to be actually bound to it. This medium then makes two guarantees for any one particle : that a) any other particle it may encounter at a place and time is actually in that place and time and b) that any place and time where it encountered a particle actually contains that particle. Meanwhile its punishment gazette is the medium in which particle interactions are allowed to happen, and in which particle interactions are permanent.
I suppose a good approximation would be to say that Pauli's exclusion principle is a direct result of the good quality of the Sun's public forum (because no two fermions may ambiguously occupy the same space) whereas the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a direct result of the good quality of the Sun's punishment gazette (because no particle may go backwards in time).
Here's a little apropos : I had this thing floating in my head for a while, out of about eight or so differend threads. The very fertile grounds of the conference started an instability that resulted in one pair collapsing, after which a good discussion in -assets collapsed another pair, and it seemed to me resolution may be mere weeks away. After which I got an absolutely compulsive conviction I must translate the earlier introduction of essences from Romanian, because it seemed it'll be central. So I spent all of yesterday doing that, and in the morning I had it. Except... it didn't use the essences in the end. I have no idea why.
I have however little doubt it's quite ontologically interesting, in the sense that it reaches all the way to the root of things. But anyway, enough ranting :
How are you to know it's not such a list, embedded in the Sun ? Not saying that it necessarily is, but how'd you know ?
It may or may not be of the same kind. Moreover, it could be of any other kind. For instance, fenotype height is not directly encoded in the genetic material of living things, yet it is quite narrowly limited. Yet there certainly is some sort of reality to the notion that "women just don't grow to sixty feet in height". For another instance, consider the discussion of the limits of possibility (carried re Bitcoin's infiltration with Stan) : why didn't you do all the things you didn't do, that you thought you could but knew you won't ? Where was this written, is it on your skull somewhere ?
I suppose this is why in the end the link to the essences articles was no longer made : because it's not even clear this is what we're dealing with here. It did clarify some things for me, the effort, almost manical, of translating them, but it turns out the space here's even wider than they offer, perhaps.
I'm not even sure there's a requirement for it to be intelligible. God knows most economic processes are not in fact intelligible in the general sense (they're only meaningful in particular contexts, much like "you had to have been there" jokes are funny), and for that matter, let's recount the joke about turbulent flow.
Tuesday, 22 April 2014
Thanks, that was great. Your response refined aspects of the epistemic access one would have to "economics" in several places, all accepted unreservedly.
Are you familiar with philosophical work on semiosis, or the action of signs? It quite closely resembles your model of economics. Interestingly enough, my route to it was via economic anthropology (specifically a generalised model of exchange). That and a truckload of Charles Peirce.
There's a very large amount of similarity between processes of exchange and processes of signification (including completely non-linguistic cases, such as, say, respects in which a sunflower signifies the sun: http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/representamen.html). In fact, I'm convinced that the former reduces to the latter. I reckon that your model could acquire substantial technical rigour by incorporating a model of semiosis. It would beat Aristotelian essences at least.
By the way, what's your intellectual background? Physics, philosophy, Bitcoin... that's reasonably diverse.
Tuesday, 22 April 2014
Somewhat familiar. Most of my (admittedly vague) notions on the topic come via Aurel Codoban from the French school. I would agree Peirce is a very good read to get in the general frame of mind that'd make this article less contusive.
This is a thought.
I was a hs physics prodigy that ended up with a degree in phylosophy/anthropology from BBU via Avram Iancu University. V. Musca, S. Frunza and I forget who in the comission, V. Frateanu as thesis mentor or w/e you call them.
Wednesday, 23 April 2014
Hah. Anthropology and philosophy were my undergrad majors. No surprise, then, that I'm sympathetic to your ideas here.
Well, if you're interested in pursuing the possibility that your theory of economics might turn out to be a (non-reductive) theory of everything in disguise, I'd be very happy to suggest a few sources. Unfortunately for researchers (though fortunately for those who hope to write something original) the materials for a rigorous model of semiosis are in disarray and spread across millennia, but the shortest route to it might be:
- Tractatus de Signis, John Poinsot, for the ontology of relative being
- Collected Papers, Charles Peirce, for action (not just the being) of signs. Use the electronic edition on Intelex to avoid permanently falling victim to the abusive editorial practice of truncating texts and arranging the pieces thematically.
- Ralph Austin Powell's article in "Semiotics 1988" (if you can find a copy) is a discussion on "objective causality" (or specificative extrinsic formal cause), which is a likely candidate for the mode of causality in operation between the sun's economy, or anywhere else.
- John Deely's speculative bid on "physiosemiosis", that is, sign action between non-conscious, physical entities (like, say, rocks).
I don't think Deely's account is spot on, but my own model isn't ready yet so I won't venture an opinion now (also, it would take pages, boring ones). But hey, with any luck I won't fail at continuing to fund myself, and the model will be ready before too long.
Wednesday, 23 April 2014
Isn't that practically racist ?
Something tells me this is probably a bad (if anterior) translation of Cauze si Scopuri
Anyway, what's the rush, we've got a whole Internet.
Wednesday, 23 April 2014
Racist how?
Cauze si scopuri: I'd need to pay to access that, and then learn Romanian. That said, I'm interested in its contents.
The rush: those who wish to avoid an industrialised, bureaucrat-dominated academia need to make an alternative plan. Unfortunately mine has not avoided being precarious. Best current option: do it quickly. But if you mean that conversation can be had indefinitely and at leisure, then yes, no need to rush at all.
Wednesday, 23 April 2014
Racist like, "Oh, you're from Harlem ? Well, do you know Williams ? He's also from Harlem."
On the other score, perhaps you should join #bitcoin-assets, meet Stan. He's also working on reaching what he terms "escape velocity".
Wednesday, 23 April 2014
Ha ha. Except it's "oh you're from Harlem? Well fancy that, I'm also from Harlem." I'm quite fascinated by the biography of ideas, for lack of a better term. History is full of reinventions, for which is required a certain type of situation, rather than a certain type of mind or even of culture. That there can be three separate movements correctly termed "nominalism" in philosophical history is a case in point. The case here is - going by the chat you linked to that saved you a couple weeks' work on the above theory - that your experience of physics has gifted you with a degree of comfort with relational being pretty rare in the entire modern era, and this has led you down a path trod by Peirce and few others. Said path is framed by the notion that "something [say, a derp] is only something when it is something to something else". Most thinkers since Descartes and before have found that notion too slippery and too bottomless to take seriously. What a pity they were too ignorant to have read their prominent near-contemporary Poinsot, who would've disabused them of a few key points about relative being and in all likelihood prevented the emergence of the so-called problem of the external world. 450 years later, and that scholarly oversight has meant that professional philosophers are still going around in circles when it comes to metaphysics.
Anyway, I'll stop ranting now. Thanks for suggesting I join bitcoin-assets. Hey, maybe I'll even bump into that lady from the SEC who you were kind enough to disabuse of a few misconceptions about her organisation's power. Now that was a fun read.
Wednesday, 23 April 2014
No no because you said "no wonder I like your broken English". It's racist I tell you!!!
When I was littler they told us there's two main ways to teach philosophy, sis-thematically or biographically. You're talking of the first.
One of my private jokes is to just call anything nominalism. You'll probably notice it in the logs.
It's kinda how I've made a living, since forever. As a translator, of sorts, making seemingly opaque circumstances transparent for people. Basically by mass-spectrometring their respective sets of ideas and constructing the superset in which both hold true.
This is a broken statement, because of the universal qualifier, and that muddying up of contradicting realities is what makes it controversial. Some things one's only when he's it irrespective of the outside. "A man is only a man if he's a man whether he's a man to all other men or none of them". Meanwhile, other things one's only when he's it irrespective of the inside, such as being a wife, or to quote the splendid Lt. Barney Greenwald :
All ills in this world arise not from that men can't quietly sit in a room, but from that men can't quietly sit in a room and read.
That was actually email, but were you there yesterday you could have assisted with the gangbanging of Reuters' Alexandra.
Wednesday, 23 April 2014
"Some things one’s only when he’s it irrespective of the outside. “A man is only a man if he’s a man whether he’s a man to all other men or none of them”."
- true of anything signified. Not true of anything in itself. This is because anything in itself turns out, upon empirical investigation, to be a semiosic web of relations. Relations between what you might ask? Relations between other things that are, in themselves, semiosic webs of relations.
In contrast, whenever something is an object (that is, necessarily an object of a sign), this is just a way of conceiving it as something atomic (aka monadic). But this is only what happens when seeing something from the outside; it's not the same as seeing its subjective constitution. The subjectivity of anything will turn out to be processual and relational; that same thing objectified appears static and atomic, just in virtue of the limited set of properties a given sign picks out in its object. So yes, as you say, these two perspectives can contradict each other. However I think they're just aspects of a single process of semiosis. [Obtuse terminological note: Poinsot would call the relation that determines objecthood a transcendental relation, and the one that constitutes a sign (which includes anything taken subjectively) an ontological relation.]
At this point though, it might look like I've invoked an infinite causal regress, with this talk of relations between relations ad infinitum. And to make matters worse, this appears to actually be the case in the world: everyday objects are relations between molecules are relations between atoms/ions are relations between subatomic particles... down to quantum foam or whatever model turns out to be best suited to describing that very indeterminate, very relational state of being. But is this a vicious regress? Only if I can't explain how everyday objects can just sort-of emerge from a bottomless stack of relations. Thus, to complete the account, an explanation of how one gets something from nothing in particular is required.
But at this point the solution almost suggests itself. Since I'm currently sweating over a paper on this very topic, I'll cull my opinion from the abstract:
"I approach the problem through the question: “in what respect is there something if it is not also something to something else?” For example, consider a collection of objects, none of which can have any kind of relation to each other. In what respect could they comprise a universe? – in no respect, since there is no principle of unity (not even spatiality) by which the objects can be one system. From the perspective of what it is to be a system, there is no difference between there being no objects at all and each object being nothing to any other object: in either case the outcome is identical: no unity, thus no universe.
"Now suppose that for anything to be an object, it would itself have to have form, which is to say it would have to be a system of internal interactions in its own right. (This appears to be the case for the actual universe.) Since the above system is one in which there are no relations, there could be no objects, since being an object requires having internal relations. In other words, there is “nothing”."
Therefore a universe must be relational in the curiously bottomless way I propose. But this is just to say that the parts comprising a universe aren't metaphysically basic; the relations are. For a universe to come to exist, such relations would just happen to obtain (by luck or otherwise). Getting down to the simplest components (if this is even possible) won't get you to the bottom of the universe - but perhaps if humanity did get to the simplest components it'd help us to notice that the "bottom" is everywhere, at every scale, and doesn't require large hadron colliders to discover.
As for racism, it's unavoidable in philosophy to use broken English. It's always a matter of fumbling around with a penknife trying to pick a lock, just as theology is always just child-paintings: the objects of both are ill-suited to a human toolset. To express admiration for your fumbling is to appreciate the way you wield an ill-adapted tool common to all.
Wednesday, 23 April 2014
Empirical investigation is not an adequate mode of inquiry towards the thing in itself. You might just as well say that subatomic phenomena turn out, upon macroscopic investigation, to not really exist.
Maybe.
I doubt everyday objects are any one single thing. You're an everyday object and yet you're a a husband or employee or more recently a "Trilema commenter".
I suspect this problem is a cognate of "so children, what's the utility of the Sun to us ?". It matters not how "you get", inasmuch as you're not getting anything, seeing how they're not yours. You may be held to explain how you get from nothing, but there's no need to explain how you are gotten.
They seem to comprise the universe of unrelatable objects you have imagined. Which, strangely enough, is a universe alright.
This is begging the dilemma, as it were.
Tis not clear that this perspective is available in your instance.
These are substantially different inquiries within irreducible contexts. An equivalent saying would be that ejaculating liquid, defined as wetness coming out of your penis, does not require intercourse or other manipulation : you can get the same results merely drinking a lot of water.
I was just trolling you, you realise. The thorn hidden in the rose being that I don't believe racism is anything more than that in any other context.
Wednesday, 23 April 2014
Hmm... that epistemological angle again. As before, I'm inclined to be sympathetic to that approach. But in this case I don't think it'll be fruitful. Not that it's gonna be easy to say why I think so while avoiding writing something tedious and unwieldy, but I'll try sketch it out:
I agree that empirical investigation is not an adequate mode of inquiry towards the thing in itself. But I didn't really mean "thing in itself" in the radical Kantian way; I just meant whatever internally constitutes something - whether within experience (empirically) or outside experience. But for the sake of argument, let's assume the Kantian usage.
Empirical investigation reveals true properties of an objective world, or else we would've mucked up the effort to create space shuttles and toasters. The objective world is to be distinguished from things in themselves by virtue of the former being the product of a modelling system that interacts with the latter. When the modelling system is scientific, it has critical control over its own objectification, enabling it to recursively improve the model. This allows the model to develop following an asymptotic course toward perfectly signifying things in themselves. I think something analogously "scientific" occurs with, say, babies' brains working out how to use their senses.
As science progressively improves its semiosis concerning a given object, it becomes possible to formulate and test falsifiable theories about that object. Before long, a theory becomes well established. Such a theory is of course not about the thing in itself, but about the thing objectified. However, it's been objectified by a process of continually "bumping up against" the thing and allowing the thing to affect one's instrumentation. The instrumentation is passive to the thing. Therefore the readout is determined partly and really by the thing; real relations with the thing are in operation, from which real properties of the thing can be abstracted (and tested).
Yet the instrumentation is only passive in limited respects; it misses everything else. So you're spot on with your doubt that everyday objects are any one single thing, and your assertion that there are multiple avenues of empirical enquiry (large hadron colliders AND my argument; ejaculation of pee AND semen...).
Yet it's still the case that scientifically objectified objects correspond rigorously to aspects of things in themselves, no matter what other properties lie undiscovered and unexploited. And it's still the case that something emerges from nothing in cases where things are relatable, no matter what else about things in themselves might elude the analysis.
I think you're right that my argument is analogous to "so children, what's the utility of the sun to us?" But ownership (the power to destroy, as you say) is not required in order to signify, so it's not a problem. After all, signification is just a modelling process, not a case of immediate access or omniscience. As long as the critical control of objectivity can produce signs that verifiably signify their objects, all is well.
Maybe from this perspective, my admittedly ambiguous use of "universe" above can be clarified: a universe is distinct from a heap, where "heap" is supposed to designate a collection of unrelated objects. Tricky thing, this, since the term "collection" relates the objects in thought, yet the mind must maintain that they're unrelated mind-independently. Let's not allow the deficiencies of language to trip us up. A "heap" of unrelated objects is not the same as a heap of sand, since the granules are really quite intimately related - spatially, exerting force upon each other, etc. - whereas an ontological heap is not, in itself, a collection of any sort except nominalistically, in the mind.
By definition a universe - mind-independently related things - isn't a heap. But what would a heap's objects be comprised of? For the objects to be anything, they'd have to have relations, which isn't allowed for heaps. Therefore heaps are inconsistent. You don't get heaps. You either get a universe, or nothing at all.
Forgive my anthropomorphic phrase "you get". There's really no "you" here. Something just comes from nothing. How? - by a possible relation becoming actual. As you correctly observe, there's an indefinite number of possible ways for things to be. Is a mark that happens to look like the letter "R", left on a cliff face by a falling boulder, a representation of the letter "R" before anyone recognises it as such? Well, mind-independently, yes. Objectively, no. The situation is the reverse of the way you describe it: while a lot of human thought might just be nominalistic mind-games, the infinitude of possible worlds is independent of and mostly outside minds in the form of representations (transcendental relations) that are not the object of any sign yet. Our finite awareness of a collection of possible ways in which the world might be is gleaned from the representative powers inherent in the subjectivities of things (the set of which includes our sensory and intellective faculties).
Racism/trolling: at the expense of being a dullard, I erred on the side of caution.
Wednesday, 23 April 2014
This doesn't hold water. People could just as well land a man on the moon through performing the same succession of steps whether they did it in the 1960s as it actually happened or in a post-apocalyptic 2160s scavenger world where some prophet-god revealed to them the holy tenets of cargo-cult aerospace exploration. So, while the true properties part is there, the "revealing" part is not.
Except any scientific system that includes the guarantee that it can in all cases identify if a proposed modelling system is scientific is self-contradictory. (Godel, restated).
So you'd never know, and thus it can't have said control.
That's not actually what allows improvement (and if it were, there'd be no such thing as "physics is a finished topic" cca 1905, nor situations where we simply don't know how to proceed so we'd know [which happen all the fucking time in all sciences - and the harder the science, the more often this is the case]).
Not only is this prime nonsense rib, but it actually has never occured in five millenia of accumulated experience (or what we still know thereof).
The idea is in itself amusing, I'd call it impacted didacticism.
This'd seem improbable to me, but who knows.
I have no idea why a minimum iota of semiosis'd be required to formulate and/or test falsifiable theories on an object. Do you ?
Or about the objectifier, especially should he find himself often inclined to before long resort to weasel wording a la "before long" :)
Let me recount an anecdote.
A friend had a very stupid father. His father managed, among many other equally laughable performances, the grand achievement of soldering his brake pads on the brake discs through the process of trying to start the car with the hand brake on. For half an hour. With smoke coming out for most of this interval.
Queried later, the man declared angrily that "he had learned his lesson". To wit, that "he shall never use a hand brake again for as long as he lives."
Would you say this citizen had been bumping up against the brake, the upper bound of stupidity or something in his own head ?
This would lead me to believe you have never dated.
This is an exact restatement of "if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance" : the insurance you like and the insurance you get to keep do indeed correspond rigurously to aspects of insurance in itself, no matter what other properties lie undiscovered.
This may require some further elucidation.
If I tell my slave, "you are now a pig", she indeed is now a pig. For she is a well trained slave, which makes her my property and the statement meaningful.
If on the other hand you tell your wife "you are now a pig", she will believe you are now a pig. For she is (presumably, I don't know) a well trained feminist, which makes you her property (in her own frame) and thus the statement paradoxical.
Do you mean cosmos ? Because that'd be the difference there : unlike a cosmos, a universe is just a heap.
Say you the same of the sand in a gas cloud (the sort stars are formed out of) ? Say you the same of a collection of randomly selected points in the astrophysical universe, through the application of a RNG to an arbitrary system of coordinates ?
Not a matter of me forgiving it I'm affraid, the problem is deeper than just an issue of language. How exactly can there be no "you", and what exactly is this supposed to be, signified bereft of signifier ?
You lost me.
Thursday, 24 April 2014
Nice objections. Let's say we grant all of them. What would you get? You'd get the same model, just expressed properly instead of in the intuitive sketching-mode I've used here.
But we're now at least two topics away from your economic theory. In case it's still worthwhile carrying on, here's a quick substitution of the sketchy terms for better descriptions, based on your objections (which I'd say are valid):
- empirical investigation reveals true properties of the objective world, but probably, not certainly. The Cartesian hangover is no good to anyone.
- when the modelling system is scientific, it has critical control over its own objectification, but not complete or certain control, just enough for hypotheses to be guided. Up with Godel.
- enabling [a modelling system] to recursively improve the model, by which is meant: hypothesise, test, deduce; repeat. It's not "flat" mathematical recursion.
- the model develops following an asymptotic course toward perfectly signifying things in themselves - only ideally, and never in practice. It would require an infinite length of time to get there, the rate of progress is by no means constant, and it could just be stopped by something.
- "before long," i.e. at any arbitrary point at which the "objectifier" thinks a theory is well established enough. (S)he's allowed to be wrong.
- Semiosis: not the Saussurean static signifier/signified dichotomy. Semiosis is a process, and a triadic one. More on this to follow. Suffice to say here that thought and scientific experimentation are paradigm cases of semiosis.
- A very stupid father. I'd say he bumped up against reality, but lacked the requisite instrumentation, like intelligence.
- the instrumentation is passive to the thing in that respect. Semiosis also has an opposite causal direction, which you (and quantum physics) have duly noted.
- sign-vehicles might "own" their objects, but they wouldn't own the thing in itself that the object is modelled on. Interpretants might "own" their sign-vehicles, but not the thing in which the sign-vehicle is embodied. Example: a stop sign is a metal octagon; reading it as a stop sign means you "own" the awareness of a command to stop, but you do not thereby own the metal.
- I use "universe" and "heap" purely technically, in the senses given above. How do you use "universe" and "cosmos"?
- "Say you the same of the sand in a gas cloud...?" Yes. They're related in myriad ways. No heap there, and neither in a randomly selected system of co-ordinates. And they're related in mind-independent (though non-material) ways. Take a universe composed of at least two objects with non-identical height; there you get, mind-independently, the relation of taller-than-ness. Even if the universe contains nothing that might trade on the relation (no people to recognise it, no inanimate effects, nothing else...), the relation would still be real. Thus it's not a heap.
- No "you". There would, however, be a sign-vehicle, an object, and a third entity, an interpretant, which would correspond best to a "you". Specifically, something would come from nothing when a relation happens to occur. This relation would perform the function of making objects from whatever things are now functioning as terms of the relation. The things would thereby be something to something else, which makes them function as objects from the "perspective" of the relation. And, the relating of the objects to the relation specifies something further: a universe. The terminology to describe all these functions would vary depending on whether the context is of an observer of the universe, or of the semiosis of the universe itself: in the latter context, the universe is an interpretant; the objects in the universe are a sign-vehicle of the universe; the relation specifying the objects is the object of the sign-vehicles. Complex, but Godel-friendly, I believe.
Test out the above clarifications on my model. They should make it work better.
Thursday, 24 April 2014
Maybe restate the thing ?
Friday, 25 April 2014
Yeah, I should. My responses starting to skirt the boundaries of intelligibility.
I tell you what, to give this topic proper treatment would take me some time, and fortunately I'm doing exactly this for a conference in July. So if you like I can send you a copy once I'm done. It would save both your having to digest a hasty (and probably rather unclear) tract in a combox, and it would save further derailing the subject of your blog post.
That said, it's been a pleasure. Was it Aristotle who said "it is the mark of an educated mind to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it"? I get surprised at how few people are capable of that. This conversation has been a blissful exception. Cool economic theory too, btw.
Friday, 25 April 2014
Just as long as it's a link to a post rather than a pdf or some similar bs.
Cheers.
Monday, 28 April 2014
I'll try to focus on economics rather than semiosis, as I at least pretend to understand the former.
First, you might want to rename the article "A complete theory of economic institutions". I do not mean to be picky, but your article surely isn't about economics per se, but certainly is fundamental to understanding how Bitcoin economy works - and by implication, how economy is construed in general.
As far as I have noticed, the economics of reputation is much, much neglected. I haven't seen much emphasis on necessity of public forum (and of public sphere as such, apart from "public goods" research) as well. Your brief exposition is convincing (at least me) in that these two form essential parts of every economy.
As you might have noticed, I tend to focus on monetary issues, though :) I'm not sure if the monetary institutions can be reduced to the medium of exchange. That is, I believe there is an important distinction between medium of exchange and unit (together with medium) of account. Currently, these two might be rather indistinguishable (it is the case with dollars) but it wasn't always the case. The difference is that while by definition medium of exchange is necessary to perform exchanges, it is unit of account in context of which we can speak of macroeconomics, price levels, nominal rigidities, money stream, MV=PT and so on. The unit of account can be abstract (consider Unidad de Fomento ), but not necessarily so (as it is not rare in Russia, where contracts are priced in dollars and payable in ruble). The point is that it is not reducible to a medium of exchange, though it is most convenient when it is connected to it.
The distinction is also quite important in the growing Bitcoin economy, as I believe it relies on dollar as the unit of account and not bitcoins (that is despite sticker prices being posted in bitcoins). The goods prices move (mostly) in tandem with BTCUSD exchange rate, if you make a substantial loan or long term contract in BTC you’d rather have it indexed or else not exposed directly to the exchange rate. I know of exceptions, of course (MPEx fee), but even if I’m wrong in identifying Bitcoin economy unit of account, still there is one, and with it come all money non-neutralities and consequences of nominal rigidities.
Please let me know what do you think on this matter.
Monday, 28 April 2014
That's actually the thesis : that it surely and exactly is. So you'll have to do more than claim surely the contrary.
Your objections seem based on implementation details rather than anything fundamental, akin to saying that when it comes to internal combustion engines, carburetored combustion does not reduce to injected combustion. For one thing it does, seeing how a carburetor can readily be seen as an inept model of an injector, and for the other thing it doesn't matter, as the fuel still burns either way.
At the very least we could say that the distinction you propose reduces to a homology of the bimetal standard, which is in no sense anything other than a gold standard, even if all the circulation is done by silver (as it usually is the case, per Gresham's law). In other words, even should the books be nominally kept in derps while the medium of exchange is herps, there will definitely be a special addendum somewhere discussing how derps convert to herps, reducing the entire discussion to a simple "last 000 omitted"/"all figures in thousands" notice on some cash flow or assets report.
This belief is at best wishful thinking. In reality, the dollar economy actually relies on Bitcoin as unit of account, its just that not so many people know about it yet (the ones that do, as is usual in matters of business, will soon be leading those who did not).
Tuesday, 29 April 2014
Actually, I’ll have to admit an error. On a re-re-reread, it is much more clear to me that your article is on economics, as it discusses what should be its subject and by implication, its tools. It is viewing it through my lens of what I perceived as economics that was distortive.
Perhaps it is the lack of explicitly mentioned agents, who use a specific medium of exchange or speak in the public forum that made me focus only on these as economic institutions in broader context. What is the role and properties of economic agents in your theory?
Well, the superstructure of medium of exchange and unit of account is “money” (or monetary system, broadly speaking) – if we agree on that, I’m satisfied and the neat triad doesn’t need to be broken. I cannot assure the same about analogies from physics though.
As far as the historical bimetal standard goes, the unit of account was both gold and silver. Were the silver only a medium of exchange, Gresham’s Law would be unable to operate, as there wouldn’t be any significant rigidity to exploit.
The conversion doesn’t need to be fixed and explicitly specified – market exchange rate in a defragmented market is a good example. Another one: US Treasury bonds are commonly accepted medium of exchange in interbank markets, whereas no one disputes what is the unit of account, and conversion rate is constantly fluctuating.
It certainly isn’t wishful thinking, it’s rather fearful thinking, at least from my side. In dollar economy, only some GPUs and ASICs change price with response to BTCUSD rate, so I’m not convinced that Bitcoin is a unit of account there (at least now).
I am more convinced of Bitcoin being a unit of account in some areas, though (as mentioned previously, it centers around MPEx – fee, shares books), but there aren’t many goods or contracts yet (would you make a significant long term loan in BTC without indexing it to anything?). Though, there is large bitcoin (pseudo-)economy that pegs itself to the dollar (Coinbase/Coinscam et alia?) – please note that I’m not talking about financial viability of these, only about economic activity per se.
Leaving monetary perplexities aside, I noticed another great feature of your exposition of economy in the article. You did not mention rules/laws (not necessarily explicitly stated) in the framework – does this imply that either you believe that correct set of laws will have to emerge nevertheless, or that these laws are endogenous to the implementation of the triad of money, punishment gazette and forum? If any of these, what is the mechanism?
Tuesday, 29 April 2014
That's the nutty part of the entire thing. It'd seem (but maybe I'm not seeing clearly) that in order for economics to be a rationally valid field, the role and properties of economic agents must remain undefined.
Now this is very disturbing on a first pass. However, it does go extremely well with other edges. For instance, how do we explain on the basis of present economic theory to they proposing to "limit" shorts that this is nonsense at best and antieconomic at worst ? No easy task. Yet if we accept the implication above, it's suddenly very simple : "you're trying to define the agents, which is economically unsound".
I think the colloquial term is the superstructure of a great many things, for convenience. I also think however that the unit of account is a subset of the medium of exchange, made to look his father's brother also for convenience, just a different sort of convenience in a different field.
This would be exactly my point. You can account in anything you wish, but it's irrelevant in the end : it all reduces to money, and money is the medium of exchange, not your unit of account.
You can account in fucks given, if you so please. Most teenagers in all times and places in fact do. Nevertheless, when rent comes due the dollar value per fuck is quickly established, and so most teenagers in all times and places end up - grudgingly, grumblingly, neverthelessly - working at McD.
Indeed not. The fact that the wife rules isn't either fixed or explicitly specified in most households, either.
Amusingly, there's no difference between these two :)
Yes. Thus and only thus. I would definitely not lend as much as a satoshi on the promise to repay according to any fiat index. See Why finance shouldn’t be open to your average Schmoe on the topic. The reply to it is linked at the bottom of the trackback stack.
Maybe we're running into a dictionary problem here, similar to one discussed hours ago in chat : #bitcoin-assets does investment. I do not believe that any activity where money changes hands qualifies as economic activity. An encounter in which Joe trades an envelope in which he might have put some money for a sack in which Moe may have put some potatoes is in no sense economical, even should an entire country feed itself thus.
I believe both of these are true. In general, there's a correct set of laws, which will in practice only be discovered for highly bound systems (which is why we can discover "the laws of nature" through making what's known as "experiments", ie, following physical objects in their intimacy). When not as bound systems (which is approximated in religion and social sciences generally as "agency") are involved, their ability to tolerate wrongness (a result of the definition, in fact the only result of the definition) means that a set of laws will emerge that's not further from the correct than what's tolerable.
Which is why tolerant people are never free : freedom is closeness to the correct set of laws.
Magnetism.
(Seriously, we have no idea what is the mechanism behind gravity even, what do you want from me.)
Thursday, 8 May 2014
Ok, now I see. Does the same apply for borrowing significant amount of btc, long term?
And to the mechanism (or "mechanism") thing: I merely asked for an outline of a possible causal chain of rule establishment. The exposition of such "mechanism" in humanities is a considerably easier task than in physics :) Do you have any ideas on such "mechanism"?
Thursday, 8 May 2014
Certainly, and here we have something better than a counterfactual : actual history. The MPOE bot carried thousands of BTC worth of loans which were never indexed. The now famous Asicminer short is exactly more of the same.
Upon consideration, I believe the mechanism is the immanence of the two essences. Now I know why I wanted those three articles translated.
Thursday, 8 May 2014
Indeed, actual examples are always superior to counterfactuals. Please correct me if I'm wrong - as far as I understand MPOE bonds, they were actually structured products with payoff structure resembling short put on MPOE profits. That is because the bondholders were not senior in terms of principal but only in terms of yield. This is of course a very sane and pretty sophisticated way of financing business, but is not debt in the strict sense of this word.
Would you borrow bitcoins in the plain sense of this word?
Re "mechanism": thanks, I will re-read these.
P.S. The asicminer short link is not working...
Thursday, 8 May 2014
Wait wait wait a second right there. So debt correctly structured is not debt "in the strict sense of the word" ? What's the strict sense of the word, that it has to be unserviceable ? Is a mortgage taken for a business purpose also not debt in the strict sense of the word, because to be debt it'd have to be credit card balances and 10 easy payments for couch cushions ? Cmon.
Link fixed, try nao.
Thursday, 8 May 2014
I did not mean to argue about wording, apologies for not being clear enough. By 'debt' I understood a fixed income asset which gives safety or seniority of principal. In this sense, I regarded MPOE bond as not strictly debt asset, economically speaking. Of course, it is common to call e.g. convertibles 'debt asset' as well, and the same can in most circumstances apply to MPOE bond.
It is most probably true that MPOE bond could not be credibly substituted by plain debt which is senior in terms of principal. I was interested if this is a general property of current state of Bitcoin economy. How do you see it? Is it possible to give seniority to principal in fixed income contracts in BTC now? If not, do you see such possibility in the future?
Friday, 9 May 2014
Yeah, I can see that approach, in the sense that it has a tradition behind it. In my own head it's nonsensical, as there is not nor can ever be such a thing as "fixed" income. No two things in business are ever equal.
Consequently, all arrangements which reference an absolute are debentures, and all arrangements which reference a relative are equities. So if you are to be repaid on the basis of X qty of dollars, honey pots, hours spent or w/e else then you own a bond of the company. However if you are to be repaid on the basis of Y% of company, then you own equity in the company.
This seems to me the only sane way to approach the problem, otherwise what do you do with things such as bonds that get the principal repaid in cash and the coupon in stock warrants ? Or even the various convertibles, which are rather common by now. Admittedly, this is perhaps an uncommon view.
I believe the only way one can have the illusion of "fixed" income is for the offering to be very small indeed (as relative to the total economy). So, by the time a five bitcent deal takes two weeks off twenty people's time, you will be able to have fixed income assets, their fixedness merely a result of the fact that nobody really cares enough to make the distinctions.
Saturday, 16 August 2014
Dear Mircea
As promised, here are the two papers relevant to our earlier discussion about your blog post here.
[url=http://mythsofkenosis.wordpress.com/2014/07/18/what-it-is-to-be-something-order-and-semiosis/]What it is to be something: order and semiosis[/url]
[url=http://mythsofkenosis.wordpress.com/2014/07/15/a-causal-mechanism-for-divine-action/]A causal mechanism for divine action[/url]
Cheers
Arlyn
Wednesday, 20 August 2014
The first lost me at
The second at
Not the sort of "stuff" that I can read (admittedly I'm a very picky reader) for reasons that should be reasonably obvious, but in case they aren't : the latter's a contradiction in terms, the former an exercise in vacuous nominalism (which is perhaps preparing itself to beg the question, if it aims to ever use the posited but nonsensical equivalency between substance and essence, all of which are... "stuff"). No need to speak of what can't be spoken to, God in his casual activity gave us pronouns for a reason.
Tuesday, 2 September 2014
In the second paper, perhaps if you'd trudged through the title and moved on to the abstract your initial reservations would've dissolved. You'd be mistaken to think that the second paper is apologetics, or, heaven forbid, evangelising.
Exercises in speculative reason are quite free to entertain the notion of God without thereby committing to defending God's existence or nature. It defeats reason (and good sense) to lump this with "religious talk".
Furthermore the relevance of the paper to this discussion is not its core thesis but rather the exposition of semiosis it contains. Skip it if you like, but that would forestall the conversation.
Basically, this conversation is several layers removed from "religious talk".
As for the first paper, perhaps if you'd had the time/patience/boredom to get past the second paragraph then you would've had an easier time working out why I use the term "stuff" (rhetorically and loosely), after which I suspect that your thoughts would've been somewhat in agreement with mine.
Finally, part of the point in discussing causal mechanisms and divine action together - and of discussing "stuff" - is to tease out some of the very contradictions you allude to here. The enormous fact that contradictions of this sort are rife throughout the modern era and have systematically prevented modern-era philosophical frameworks from solving any of the major problems they were intended to solve is testament to the need for new frameworks that do not encounter such problems. Philosophy never became "the handmaiden of the sciences." Nobody solved the problem of the external world. Free will is still an enigma. The modern era failed. I'm proposing solutions. You'll need the patience to read them before your comments come to bear meaningfully upon them.
Wednesday, 3 September 2014
This is factually correct (well, minus the second sentence, I don't know what you're doing). You will notice however that I phrased my objection in personal terms (ie, speaking of what the problems are with me) rather than objective. I am not discussing what the merits or dismerits of your texts are in themselves. I am merely observing why I am not reading them.
While it's perfectly true that I can make no meaningful comment upon them until I actually read them, it is equally true that in fact I have not read them. This situation is roughly similar to the situation of a woman that, while not very pretty, not very clever, not famed as particularly a great cocksucker and clueless enough to not have her nudes proving all these readily available on her own homepage, nevertheless tells some guy she fancies all about the happy family they could have together, if only he proposed. To which that man's response readily is the Laconian "if", and there it all goes. The potential she sees does not exist outside of her imagination, and for it to exist she actually needs him, which perhaps means that her proposed imagination may not exists as such.
This is the relative importance of bits like You’re gonna have to learn that variety speak ; Patriarchy is a thing because nobody likes living in a world populated by little girls and their daughter in this context, No, you don’t have something to say on the topic : that the problem of language as convention exists, and as a precondition to meaningful interaction one must aquire the Latin ; that the problem of decision is unresolvable in matters of knowledge, because a basis for deciding ipso definitio is lacking and so therefore that the only manner in which one can talk meaningfully about matters that interest him is to first acquire power (the Latin relevant word being auctoritas not imperium, ftr) in such types and quantities as may be required and necessary.
Which, of course, does not answer the question of how would one acquire power that has none. This is I suspect quite proper : one shouldn't. Power in this context is a meta-concept, and the population should not have access to tools that directly influence the meta - otherwise the conceptual world goes into a spiral of complexity quite specific to modernity (and the cause of its failure, basically) : as peons get read and then write access to the clay tablets storing their performance, paperwork to store their performance with regards to their performance becomes required (ie, there will always be a meta). Soon enough too many metas and the very Athenian end to civilisation.
So to crown : worry you not about what your children that you do not have may have been like ; worry you not about how unfair it is that as an aspiring something the established somethings couldn't be bothered to give you the time of the day ; work ye instead diligently on yer harmony and diction and perhaps someone prints your name in the paper before the day you die.
PS. You will notice how I ruthlessly use you for my own purposes, to create the text that interests me and is of interests to the people folowing me. This is quite what's going on all the time and everywhere, going into a phd programme at any university or commenting on Trilema are not in the slightest different on this much. This may yield the temptation of solepsism, which is to say, to go somewhere in a desert and pretend like you're a little emperor all by yourself, and so the birds and the bees and the jacaranda trees are listening and following your text. This has been tried all along human history, and it turns out that while not an outright impossibility, it's actually even more of a crapshot than the alternative it purports to replace (which is why patristics are so chock full with injunctions, admonitions and enjoinders against self-administered monasticism).
Wednesday, 3 September 2014
Well, to put all that disputable socio-political talk aside, in my opinion our interaction comes down to this:
- We were talking about your theory of economics above.
- I suggested that, in order to clarify properly what I was saying, it would make sense for me to simply refer you to some papers I was writing.
- For one reason or another, you're not prepared to read the papers.
- And so the conversation stalls.
Thus, henceforth we change the topic. That's pretty much all it comes to.
To return to the matter of power and how you construe your relationship to me, you are of course quite free to assume a position of power over me, since I have no direct means of altering it. On the other hand, since our mode of interaction is purely a conversation, I could, if I found it pleasurable (which I don't), act assuming the same relationship of power over you. In other words, the nature of interpersonal relation is quite free for us to determine, and all that stuff you mentioned either bears indirectly or does not bear at all upon our interaction.
What does bear on our interaction is the quality we want to give it. Personally I'd want to engage your idea here with due seriousness, since it's interesting, pursue the truth of various matters, since they're pertinent, and probably enjoy a bit of intellectual jousting along the way, since that seems to be part of how you write. If I should be unlucky enough for these opportunities to fade away, well, I suppose that unless further ones arise I'll wander off too.
This would be a pity. But it's the freedom (that is, the power to act) that one has in a conversation.
Now would you try come up with some less ridiculous reasons for not reading those papers?
Wednesday, 3 September 2014
The problem is - that relationship of power can never be put aside. You're perhaps familiar with some jurisdictions recognising private agreements, pacta sunt servanda and all that - yet most will not recognise agreements giving away some particular things. You may never sell your children, even if indeed they are "your" children, nor your kidneys, vote and so forth. The reason for this is trying to mimic nature, something legal systems more or less aptly manage but always at least attempt.
You can't very well tell the water flooding your bathroom to "put aside gravity for now, and go flood your neighbour instead - for you're busy writing and he's an asshole". Exactly in the same way, you can't abstract your way out of the exact whys and wherefores involved here. It's not that "I'm not prepared to read for whatever reason", that's a restatement of approximately the strength of saying Kennedy died for whatever reasons. It's that your writing as is does not meet my bar. It will have to either be rewritten to so meet my bar, or else remain obscure for all eternity, or at least for such a fraction of eternity until I am so very impressed with your authority otherwise that I'll want to read it anyway.
I understand why yours is a tempting course. For one thing it's scarcely novel - people have been going to hide away from reality in "scholarship" for a while now ; the unspoken convention underpinning all sterile, sophomoric philosophical debate is "anything may be presumed" for a reason. As tempting as it may be, it is nevertheless unequivocally and irreparably a broken course.
This, mind you, is not a matter of you, personally, and me, personally. For one thing, I don't know you nearly enough to have any sort of personal relationship whatsoever. For the more important thing, the problem was discussed without relying on some sort of presumption about either you or me, outside of the function you proposed. We could be both Turkish or you could be an astronaut, that part makes exactly zero difference. Maybe you're in love or maybe I'm a closeted ballet dancer.
The problem is quite universal, and it flows for the very functioning of what you propose : author has power over reader ; the request is roughly equivalent to "please run this software on your machine". Obviously, I do not run random software on my machines, and similarly here I will not read something that does not satisfy specific measures I use to establish that the author has a good understanding of the topic he's attempting, lest for some accidental reason that fundamental question is otherwise resolved (for instance - I will read an utter turd penned by Taleb on the topic of risk, even if it's an utter turd ; meanwhile I won't read five paragraphs by Krugman). Your text has failed this test, and I produced for your benefit specific error messages, which while perhaps not as helpful as one may like, are nevertheless all any coder, good or bad, academic or in industry, ever gets.
You may think that any text, for having been written, is entitled to be read. Again, I could see why such would be a tempting course, even if on its face it's just repackaged "any human being is entitled to food for being alive" or somesuch. Needless to say, I don't subscribe to this theory, but what's more : nature does not subscribe to this theory. And yet again, it is true that an artificial environment can be constructed, and has at times been constructed, where texts are read merely for existing. This isn't one of them.
(Moreover, as a pure paranthetical : inasmuch as they're artificial, they have to be paid for. Many are paid in cash, such as for instance in the form of tuition, for reading crap produced by twentysomethings, and taxation, for reading crap produced by tweens and teenagers. Plenty are however paid in kind, such as the various reading circles and what other hypergraphiacs anonymous ngos there may exist. It is in this vein that your negotiatory approach mostly reads, but lo and behold! that I'm not in any sense interested in cutting a deal here. I do not wish to be read at all if it's to be by people who expect me to read them in turn, nor am I interested in talking to anyone who makes listening an exchange with them talking to me. For one thing, this approach to life doesn't scale worth a crap, for the other it's ungodly boring, at least as far as my needs go.)
In any event, your opinion that "interpersonal relation is quite free for us to determine" is little more than somewhat misplaced, naive romanticism, and on the face quite mistaken. Should you ever be fortunate enough to meet an irresistible woman, you will know that your relationships are nothing but preordained. They're things in this world almost before you are a thing in this world, and there's no escaping them. There is denying them, of course, but the fugitive slave is not anulling his slavery by modifying it with an epithet - and similarly shunning that irresistible woman will be a great accomplishment only in imagination, otherwise it's a sore and very regrettable failure. So no, I am who I am, you are who you are, and our relationship flows from that and goes wherever the fuck it pleases - devil may care.
As to what you want and what the future holds : nobody cares what you think you want, and you yourself least of all. Your future is not something for you to construct, as inept but otherwise well meaning pious fraudsters littering the English language with their tedious, half-baked offerings for the past century would have you believe.
So : no. Either rewrite them so they don't read like the cat shat them, or let me be.
Wednesday, 3 September 2014
"They’re things in this world almost before you are a thing in this world, and there’s no escaping them. There is denying them, of course, but the fugitive slave is not anulling his slavery by modifying it with an epithet - and similarly shunning that irresistible woman will be a great accomplishment only in imagination, otherwise it’s a sore and very regrettable failure."
Fuck, ...
I've been living all wrong.
Wednesday, 3 September 2014
If you dun read enough Wilde...
Thursday, 4 September 2014
I like your software analogy there. It's pretty apt. I do want you to "run this software on your machine."
As for your error messages, when they're fed back into my "error-reporting system," if you will, they return the following response:
"The messages bear no meaningful relation to what the papers are about. This reader clearly has not read the papers."
Hence, you have ridiculous reasons for not reading the papers.
As for the quality of the writing, for what it's worth they were received in Oxford by an multi-disciplinary audience, most of whom had little to no familiarity with the material I was covering, and the response was dominated by two factors: that the papers were clearly written and that their approach was novel and worth pursuing further. So against your view that "they read like the cat shat them" is both a greater number of contrasting views, and an audience for which I hold a lot of respect. Add to this the fact that you'd first need to read the papers before being able to reliably form your view, you're on shaky ground here.
So although you've said all kinds of interesting and erudite things above, it all boils down to this: you're under no compulsion to read the papers, you're in no position to decide their quality until you read them, and in order for you to form a non-ridiculous opinion as to whether to read them, you'd do well to listen to the "error messages" that your response produced in me, which is that your reasons for not reading them have no bearing on what the papers are actually about. Hence my earlier suggestion that you reform your view on why not to read them.
Thursday, 4 September 2014
Ha! But let us drag this matter further. Consider the case of the esteemed William McGonagall. If you're not fresh on the great poets Scottish soil has produced (through importation), allow me to bring you quickly up to speed, with a few quotes and a few lines of commentary.
I. A bridge between Dundee and Wormit is built. The local poet has this to say :
II. A decade later, the poorly designed, poorly built bridge collapses. The local poet is nearby :
III. A futher decade later, a new bridge was built in the same place, for the same purpose. The local poet herpy-derpy-day :
Clearly, the experience was not wasted on our brave Irishman pretending himself a Scott : he now knows to add windy storms in there.
IV. An innocent bystander had this to say :
The biography of Mr. McGonagall includes other anecdotes. For instance : before becoming the poet-laureate of Wormit-upon-Tay, he performed! Upon the stage! Giles' Theatre, a local affair about as theatrically apt as you'd imagine allowed him the title role in Macbeth - if he paid for the priviledge. And pay he did, and advertise he did, and so on spectacle day the theatre was filled with his friends& acquaintances - no doubt anxious to see this wonder. They were not greatly disappointed, I'm sure. For instance the play nominally ends with Macbeth's death ; but McGonagall didn't think it fair that the actor playing Macduff - who hadn't even paid to be there! - was upstaging him. So he refused to die.
Now, with this introduction, let's read your lines again :
Do you see the problems there ? Let's count them together. First off, the opinions of people who have gathered for the purpose of being gathered are of no value and consequence whatever. This is why the collected "intelligence" of so-called "governing boards" of banks all across the United States were powerless to prevent the most recent crisis. These aren't people assembled for an actual reason, as a result of merits. These are people whose merits are supposed to be predicated on the mere fact of having been assembled. Not quite the same thing.
Second off, what are the odds in your estimation of all the members of the audience raising against and rejecting any one thing presented to them ? What are the odds in your estimation of some of the members rejecting any one thing presented to them, and how would the assembly handle such dissent ? It would be easy to do, wouldn't it, all you'd have to do is insert something about how niggers suck, women belong in the kitchen and the holocaust as a jewish conspiracy to make sure they will reject. But outside of this formal approach, how would one make them reject a text, any text ? And if no such thing is possible on the basis of the substance on the text, merely on the basis of its form, on what exact form of delusional thinking do you base any proposition that they were made to accept yours ? They who don't ever refuse can never accept. They're furniture, this audience of yours.
Thirdly, did you just try to bring a case where your text was accepted on formal grounds only by a collection of pretentious furniture as an excuse as to why your text should have been accepted on formal grounds by everyone, myself included ? Your argument originally was that your text holds substance, why are you arguing as to form now ? Your argument originally was to put the politics aside, why are you attempting a political tack now ? What should I or anyone care that some people at Oxford were too sound asleep to notice you were there spreading cat doo doo on crackers for their benefit ?
You know and I know and everyone knows as well as Sokal knows that they couldn't tell "clearly written" from machine generated text ; and that anything's "worth pursuing further" on the simple basis that if it doesn't pay them tuition directly, it at least contributes to the general fraudulent pseudoscientific atmosphere wherein their grants exist and are approved in the first place - yet another of the countlessly many pernicious effects of the state.
It's true that at some point in the history of the world scientists were respectable people, and Oxford an assembly of respectable people. At that time scientists were independelty wealthy fellows, and self-managed. Meanwhile things have changed, a lab coat is today a prop for selling consumers toothpaste and "global warming" and Oxford gave up on even trying to teach Latin and Greek, after fifty years during which its professors of either were so utterly bad at it one far preferred to talk classics with a working lathe. At least that thing screeches by design.
The argument that there's more of them is amusing, incidentally. So you've held a headcount, and more people agree with the pope than with Copernic ? Well bully for the pope! Nobody even recalls his name by now, but that's probably just because they're jealous of his intellectual success. The argument that you hold them in higher esteem is however interesting, so let's talk about that for a while.
Why exactly do you hold them in higher esteem ?
Saturday, 6 September 2014
Amidst all that you avoided the central thrust of the argument in my previous post (and fancy-footed your way around the peripheral remarks).
So I'll restate it:
At this stage you’re in no position to decide the quality of those papers, and in order for you to form a non-ridiculous opinion as to whether to read them, you’d do well to listen to the “error messages” that your response produced in me, which is that your reasons for not reading them have no bearing on what the papers are actually about.
So I suggest again that you reform your view on why not to read them.
Or just go ahead and read them. The whole point was that I think the ideas in them will resonate pretty interestingly with your theory of economics here. And *that* might make for a far more enlivening discussion.
Saturday, 6 September 2014
I'm not avoiding anything. Nothing there to avoid. There doesn't exist a "quality of those papers" as an objective, measurable, universal something. The quality of any papers is purely contextual. For instance : they're great for Oxford while useless here.
Saturday, 6 September 2014
Well, naturally.
But I've not been trying to assert their absolute quality. I've simply been pointing out the ridiculousness of your reasons for not reading them.
I think you tried to sidestep the argument again there.
Saturday, 6 September 2014
Well, you keep making claims, which is fine, but they don't have any substance, which isn't fine.
So you think it ridiculous, great, anything's ridiculous for some audience. So you figure this "oh, you're AvOiDiNg TeH IsSuE" response whenever someone doesn't do what you want them to is going to work, and who the hell knows, maybe you live among the sort of idiots on whom it does work. More power to you, but seriously. STFU and rewrite.
Saturday, 6 September 2014
I'm not making claims, I'm making arguments, which thus have "substance".
To restate my arguments:
- Having scarcely read the papers, you’re in no position to decide their quality. Therefore your claims as to their quality are insufficiently justified.
- Define reasons that lack a bearing on their object as "ridiculous". In order for you to form non-ridiculous reasons as to whether to read them, your reasons for not reading them would need to have some bearing on what the papers are actually about. They do not. Therefore your reasons for not reading them are ridiculous.
What lacks substance is your groundless avoidance of the above arguments. By sidestepping them you come across as having nothing to say against them.
It's not a matter of me trying to get you to do what I want you to do. It's a matter of reason requiring that one take one of only a few courses of action, all of which involve argumentation, not sidestepping.
Saturday, 6 September 2014
Seriously now, this is getting tedious. You won't be able to pull yourself by your breches into some sort of intellectually respectable position just because you really, really want to. I get that you want to. I get that you think it's nice. It is nice, and you should want it, but that's not enough. It takes work, you apprentice wizard you. Go do that work and stop wasting my time.
I am aware that "go rewrite" is not a trivial task, and that you probably won't be able to complete it without doing a lot more reading. While this may appear as an inconvenience to you, it's not ; and while that apparent inconvenience may in turn appear to you as sufficient excuse to not do what you're supposed to do, it's not.
So : go read yourself to the point where you understand why the shit you penned is shit ; then re-write it ; then come back. And meanwhile, stop trying to insinuate yourself into this position of equality. That is ridiculous.
Saturday, 6 September 2014
This is indeed tedious. Let's call it a day.
Perhaps we'll just let readers decide for themselves whose case was the stronger.
Monday, 6 October 2014
** eats Mr Popescu for breakfast.
Don't see that everyday
Monday, 6 October 2014
@Sean Hilbert Wait, wut ?!
Saturday, 8 August 2015
Leaving this here for google to index kthx.
Take Plaquenil for #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] the {full|complete} {prescribed|proposed|recommended} length of time for {malaria|fever and ague}. {Side {effects|results|impacts}|Adverse effects|Negative effects|Negative side effects} of Zimulti {typically|generally|usually|normally|commonly} {include|consist of|feature} {vomiting|throwing up|puking}, {nausea|queasiness|nausea or vomiting} and {insomnia|sleep problems|sleeplessness|sleeping disorder|sleeping disorders|sleep loss}, {but|however|yet} these are {likely|most likely} to {go away|disappear|vanish} as your {body|physical body} {{adjusts|readjusts} to|adapts to} the {treatment|therapy|procedure}. {According to|Baseding on} some {data|information} that {hasn't|hasn't already} {received|gotten|obtained|wered given} {sufficient|adequate|enough|ample} {scientific|clinical} {proof|evidence}, Zimulti {may|might|could} {also|likewise|additionally} #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] {prevent|avoid|stop|protect against} the {risk|danger|threat} of {developing|establishing|creating} {{cardiovascular|cardio} {disease|illness|condition}|heart disease|heart attack}. In {case|situation|instance} of {suspecting|presuming|thinking|believing} {a pregnancy|a maternity} {continue|proceed} taking this {drug|medicine} and {talk to|speak with|speak to|talk with|get in touch with} your {doctor|physician|medical professional} {as {soon|quickly} as|as quickly as|when|as early as} {possible|feasible} #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] to {discuss|talk about|go over|review} {further|additional|more} {actions|activities}. Acomplia #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] {works|functions} by {blocking|obstructing|shutting out} CB1 receptors in the {brain|mind} and {peripheral|outer} {organs|body organs} {decreasing|reducing|minimizing|lowering|lessening} the {activity|task} of our endocannabinoid system (EC system). It's {commonly|typically|frequently|generally|often} {prescribed|recommended|suggested} #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] to {treat|deal with|address|manage} infections {caused|triggered|created|induced} by {different|various} {{types|kinds} of|kinds of|sorts of} {worms|earthworms} (hookworm, {roundworm, pinworm, and whipworm|roundworm, whipworm, and pinworm|pinworm, roundworm, and whipworm|pinworm, whipworm, and roundworm|whipworm, roundworm, and pinworm|whipworm, pinworm, and roundworm}). {Tell|Inform} your {doctor|physician|medical professional} {about|regarding|concerning} all {medicines|medications} you #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] {use|utilize|make use of}, {and|and also|as well as} those you {start|begin} or {stop|quit} {using|utilizing|making use of} {during|throughout} your {treatment|therapy}, {especially|particularly|specifically}. These {studies|research studies|researches} {have|have actually} {shown|revealed} that mirtazapine {{acts|behaves} as|serves as|functions as|works as} {an antagonist|a villain} at {central|main} presynaptic О±2-- adrenergic {inhibitory|repressive} autoreceptors {and|and also|as well as} heteroreceptors, {an action|an activity} that is {postulated|proposed|theorized|put forward|hypothesized} to #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] {result in|lead to|cause} {an increase|a boost|a rise} in {central|main} noradrenergic {and|and also|as well as} serotonergic {activity|task|tactics}. Zoloft is {an oral|a dental} antidepressant {drug|medicine} {available|offered|readily available} {upon|after} {prescription|prescribed}. {Before|Prior to} your {doctor|physician|medical professional} makes the {decision|choice} of {prescribing|recommending|suggesting} Zoloft you {have to|need to} {tell|inform} {him|your man} {about|regarding|concerning} {any|any type of|any kind of|any sort of} {medical|clinical|health care} {conditions|problems|disorders} that {may|might|could} {potentially|possibly} {interact|communicate|connect} with the {treatment|therapy|procedure} ({any|any type of|any kind of|any sort of} chronic, {{hereditary|genetic|inherited} and {other|various other}|{other|various other} and {hereditary|genetic|inherited}} {diseases|illness|conditions}), {as well as|in addition to|along with|and also} the {drugs|medicines} you are {currently|presently} #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] taking. {Make sure|Ensure|Make certain|See to it} you {include|consist of|feature} {into|in to} this {list|listing|checklist} all {herbal|natural|organic} {preparations|prep works|plannings}, mineral supplements and {vitamins|supplements} as they {may|might|could} be {also|likewise|additionally} {dangerous|harmful|hazardous|unsafe|risky} if {combined|incorporated|integrated} with Zoloft. {At {least|the very least}|A minimum of|At the very least} {two|2} weeks {should|ought to|can|must|need to} pass after the last {dose|dosage|amount} of such {drugs|medicines} as MAO {inhibitors|preventions} {before|prior to} you {can|could|should} {safely|securely} take Zoloft. {If you {accidentally|unintentionally|inadvertently|mistakenly} took these {drugs|medicines} {simultaneously|at the same time|concurrently|all at once} {seek|look for|find} {emergency|emergency situation} {medical|clinical|health care} {help|assistance|aid|support} {to {prevent|avoid|stop|protect against}|to avoid|to stop} {fatal|deadly} {consequences|repercussions|effects|outcomes}. |, if you {accidentally|unintentionally|inadvertently|mistakenly} took these {drugs|medicines} {simultaneously|at the same time|concurrently|all at once} {seek|look for|find} {emergency|emergency situation} {medical|clinical|health care} {help|assistance|aid|support} to {prevent|avoid|stop|protect against} {fatal|deadly} {consequences|repercussions|effects|outcomes}. Erythromycin is {an efficient|an effective|a reliable} antibiotic that {works|functions} #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] by {{slowing|decreasing|reducing} down|decreasing|reducing} the {growth|development} of {bacteria|germs|microorganisms} and {killing|eliminating} them {subsequently|consequently}. Your {{health|wellness|health and wellness} {care|treatment}|healthcare|medical} {provider|service provider|company|supplier|carrier} {{needs|requires|really needs} to|has to|should} be {notified|informed|alerted} #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] of the following {health|wellness|health and wellness} {conditions|problems|disorders} in {case|situation|instance} you have them: lupus, liver {disease|illness|condition}, {gout|gout pain|gout arthritis|an episode of gout}, {diabetes|diabetic issues}, {{allergy|allergic reaction} to|hatred} sulfa {drugs|medicines}, and {kidney|renal|renal system} {disease|illness|condition}. Taking {more|even more|additional} of Bactrim is not {going to|visiting} make your {treatment|therapy|procedure} {more|much more|a lot more} {efficient|effective|reliable} and is {likely|most likely} to {cause|trigger|create|induce} {undesired|undesirable|unwanted|unacceptable} #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] {side {effects|results|impacts}|adverse effects|negative effects|negative side effects} that you {{would|would certainly} {rather|instead}|prefer to} {avoid|prevent|stay clear of|stay away from}. {Mild|Moderate|Light} {side {effects|results|impacts}|adverse effects|negative effects|negative side effects}, such as {{ringing|calling|sounding} in|supplanting} your ears, {dizziness|lightheadedness}, {insomnia|sleep problems|sleeplessness|sleeping disorder|sleeping disorders|sleep loss}, {swollen|inflamed|puffy} tongue, and joint {pain|discomfort}, are {{more|much more|a lot more} {likely|most likely}|most likely} {but|however|yet} {{tend|have a tendency|often tend|usually tend} to|have the tendency to|often} be {short-lived|brief|short-term|transient}. The {following|complying with|adhering to} {meds|medications} are {especially|particularly|specifically} {important|essential|crucial|vital} to {report|state|mention}: heart {rhythm|tempo} {medications|medicines}, isoniazid, antidepressants, HIV or AIDS {medicines|medications}, nicardipine, cimetidine, {antibiotics|prescription antibiotics|anti-biotics}, letrozole, #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] rifampin, blood {thinners|slimmers}, and {{any|any type of|any kind of|any sort of} {other|various other|people}|other} {prescription|prescribed} or {over-the-counter|non-prescription|over the counter} {products|items}. While you {will|will certainly} be {most likely|probably|more than likely|likely} {recommended|suggested|advised} to take {vitamins|supplements} or mineral supplements, you {{need|require|really need} to|have to|should} {be {aware|conscious|mindful|informed} of|know|understand|recognize} the {fact|truth|reality} that Alli {can|could|should} make it {{more|much more|a lot more} {difficult|challenging|tough|hard}|harder} for your {body|physical body} to {absorb|take in|soak up} {some of|a few of|several of} #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] them ({mostly|mainly|primarily} fat-soluble {vitamins|supplements}, such as A, D, E, and K). {An increase|A boost|A rise} in ventricular {premature|early|untimely} beats {and|and also|as well as} nonsustained ventricular #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] tachycardia {have|have actually} been {seen|viewed} in Holter {monitored|kept track of|kept an eye on|checked} {patients|clients|people|individuals}. Rocaltrol is {indicated|suggested|shown} in #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] the {management|administration} of hypocalcemia {and|and also|as well as} the resultant metabolic {bone|bone tissue} {disease|illness|condition} in {patients|clients|people|individuals} {undergoing|going through|undertaking} {chronic|persistent} {renal|kidney} dialysis. You {always|constantly} {{need|require|really need} to|have to|should} {make {sure|certain}|ensure|make certain|see to it} you {let|allow|permit} your {doctor|physician|medical professional} {know|understand} if you have {any|any type of|any kind of|any sort of} {medical|clinical|health care} {issues|problems|concerns} that {may|might|could} #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] {require|need|call for} {a different|a various} {dose|dosage|amount} of Seroquel {to {begin|start} with|to start with|initially}, {especially|particularly|specifically} liver {disease|illness|condition}, {a history|a past|a record} of {low|reduced} {white blood cell|white cell} counts, {heart {disease|illness|condition}|heart problem|cardiovascular disease}, {thyroid|thyroid gland} {disorder|condition|ailment}, {a history|a past|a record} of {diabetes|diabetic issues}, {kidney|renal|renal system} {disease|illness|condition}, {{high|very high|higher} blood {pressure|stress|tension}|hypertension}, heart {rhythm|tempo} {problems|issues|troubles}, {a history|a past|a record} of {heart {attack|strike}|cardiovascular disease|cardiac arrest} or {stroke|movement} {as well as|in addition to|along with|and also} {high|very high|higher} {cholesterol|cholesterol levels}. The corticosteroid {activity|task|tactics} of each of these {two|2} metabolites is {less|much less} {than|compared to} 1 #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] % of that of the {parent|moms and dad} {compound|substance|material}. It is #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] taken either as {a single|a solitary} {daily|everyday|day-to-day} {dose|dosage|amount} or as {two|2} {evenly|uniformly|equally} {divided|split|separated|broken down} {doses|dosages|amounts} {two|2} times a day {according to|baseding on} {doctor|physician|medical professional}'s {prescription|prescribed}. In #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] a later 1-year {study|research study|research}, {increased|enhanced|boosted|raised} {cough|coughing} was {seen|viewed} in {almost|practically|nearly|virtually} 12 % of Altace {patients|clients|people|individuals}, with {about|around} 4 % of {patients|clients|people|individuals} {requiring|needing|calling for} discontinuation of {treatment|therapy}. Are you {{wondering|questioning|asking yourself} {about|regarding|concerning}|questioning} the {advantages|benefits} online {pharmacies|drug stores} {give|provide|offer} you #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] if {{compared|contrasted|reviewed} to|compared with|as compared to} the {regular|routine|normal} ones? This {drug|medicine} {rarely|seldom|hardly ever} {causes|triggers|creates|induces} {serious|major|severe|significant} {side {effects|results|impacts}|adverse effects|negative effects|negative side effects}, {but|however|yet} they all {{need|require|really need} to|have to|should} be {reported|stated|mentioned} to your {{health|wellness|health and wellness} {care|treatment}|healthcare|medical} #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] {provider|service provider|company|supplier|carrier} {right away|immediately|as soon as possible|straightaway|without delay|promptly}. Nootropil {tablets|tablet computers} {and|and also|as well as} {oral|dental} {solution|option|services|remedy} both #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] {contain|include|consist of|have} the {active|energetic} {ingredient|component|element|substance} piracetam. At the {first|very first|initial} {signs|indications|indicators} or {symptoms|signs|signs and symptoms} of {heart {failure|failing}|cardiac arrest}, discontinuation of Zebeta {should|ought to|must|need to} be {considered|thought about|taken into consideration}. #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] {In some {cases|situations|instances}|Sometimes|In many cases}, beta-blocker {therapy|treatment} {can|could} be {continued|proceeded} while {heart {failure|failing}|cardiac arrest} is treated {with|regarding} {other|various other} {drugs|medicines|medications}. Tetracycline {should|ought to|must|needs to} be taken {only|just} by {people|individuals} to {whom|which|who} it was {prescribed|recommended|suggested} and is {efficient|effective|reliable} in the {treatment|therapy|procedure} of {urinary|urinary system} {tract|system} infections #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] and {a number of|a variety of|a lot of} {other|various other} {conditions|problems|disorders} as {advised|recommended|encouraged|suggested} by your {{health|wellness|health and wellness} {care|treatment}|healthcare|medical} {provider|service provider|company|supplier|carrier}. The {symptoms|signs|signs and symptoms} of vataja prathisyaya (Ayurvedic name for Rhinitis) are: Nasanaha is {{nothing|absolutely nothing} {but|however|yet}|only|just} nose #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] block, Kaphasruti is running {nose, rhinorrhoea {and|and also|as well as} Kshava|nose, kshava {and|and also|as well as} rhinorrhoea|rhinorrhoea, nose {and|and also|as well as} kshava|rhinorrhoea, kshava {and|and also|as well as} nose|kshava, nose {and|and also|as well as} rhinorrhoea|kshava, rhinorrhoea {and|and also|as well as} nose} is sneezing. When {applying|using} Tretinoin Cream, you {may|might|could} {get|obtain} {a few|a couple of} {mild|moderate|light} {side {effects|results|impacts}|adverse effects|negative effects|negative side effects} like #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] burning, tingling, {itching|irritating}, {irritation|irritability|inflammation}, {discolored|stained|blemished|tarnished} skin, dryness, {redness|soreness|inflammation}, {warmth|heat}, {stinging|painful}, {{swelling|puffinessing} or {peeling|peeling off}|{peeling|peeling off} or {swelling|puffinessing}}. The following {side {effects|results|impacts}|adverse effects|negative effects|negative side effects} are {normal|typical|regular} and {will|will certainly} {disappear|vanish|fade away} {soon|quickly}: {itching|irritating}, #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] {peeling|peeling off}, {redness|soreness|inflammation}, {stinging|painful}, burning, and {dry|completely dry} skin. Metformin is not {going to|visiting} {cure|treat|heal} your {diabetes|diabetic issues} #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] - you {will|will certainly} {{need|require|really need} to|have to|should} take it for as {long|in length|lengthy} as you {want|desire|wish} this {medicine|medication} to be {efficient|effective|reliable}. {Make {sure|certain}|Ensure|Make certain|See to it} you take it {regularly|routinely|frequently|consistently|on a regular basis} without {missing|missing out on} {doses|dosages|amounts} or {skipping|avoiding|missing} them {on {purpose|function|objective}|intentionally|deliberately}. To {make {sure|certain}|ensure|make certain|see to it} you {can|could} {safely|securely} {use|utilize|make use of} Xalatan, {tell|inform} your {doctor|physician|medical professional} if you have swelling #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] or infection of your eye. These antidepressants {have|have actually} marked dose-dependent {effects|results|impacts} on {{rapid|fast|quick|swift} eye {movement|motion|activity}|rapid-eye-movement sleep|rapid eye movement sleep} (REM) {sleep|rest}, {causing|triggering|creating|inducing} {reductions|decreases} in the {overall|general|total} {amount|quantity} of REM {sleep|rest} over the {night|evening} {and|and also|as well as} {delays|hold-ups} the #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] {first|very first|initial} entry {into|right into} REM {sleep|rest} ({increased|enhanced|boosted|raised} REM {sleep|rest} {onset|beginning|start} latency (ROL)), both in {{healthy|healthy and balanced} {subjects|topics} {and|and also|as well as} {depressed|disheartened} {patients|clients|people|individuals}|{depressed|disheartened} {patients|clients|people|individuals} {and|and also|as well as} {healthy|healthy and balanced} {subjects|topics}}. Erythromycin is {prescription|prescribed} antibiotic #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] {specially|specifically|particularly} {designed|created|developed|made} for the {needs|requirements|demands|necessities} of {patients|clients|people} with {bacterial|microbial} infections. Some {medicines|medications} {can|could} make it harder for your {body|physical body} #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] to {absorb|take in|soak up} Actonel. The {possibility|opportunity|probability} of cyclophosphamide-induced {malignancy|hatred} {should|ought to|must|need to} #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] be {considered|thought about|taken into consideration} in {any|any type of|any kind of|any sort of} benefit-to-risk {assessment|evaluation|analysis} for {use|usage} of the {drug|medicine|medication}. This {drug|medicine} {can|could} be {used|utilized|made use of} {along {with|regarding}|in addition to|together with} HIV #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] or AIDS {medications|medicines}, rifabutin, antifungals, {antibiotics|prescription antibiotics|anti-biotics}, {{high|higher} blood {pressure|stress|tension}|hypertension} {meds|medications}, prostate {disorder|condition|ailment} {drugs|medicines}, rifampin, antidepressants, barbiturates, rifapentine, seizure {medications|medicines} and blood {pressure|stress|tension} {medications|medicines} {but|however|yet} {only|just} {after this|then|hereafter} {has|has actually} been {discussed|talked about|gone over|reviewed} {with|regarding} {a doctor|a physician|a medical professional}. The {risks|dangers|threats} of Zyban {should|ought to|must|need to} be #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newzonestest2_2.txt",1,S] {weighed|evaluated|considered} {against|versus} the {benefits|advantages|perks} of its {use|usage}.
Sunday, 16 August 2015
Calcitriol #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newspm.txt",1,S] is {the most|one of the most} {active|energetic} {known|recognized|well-known} {form|type|kind} of vitamin D3 in {stimulating|promoting} {intestinal|digestive tract|digestive|intestinal tract} calcium {transport|transportation}. Your {dose|dosage|amount} of Vardenafil {may|might|could} {require|need|call for} {an adjustment|a modification|a change}. {{Even|Also} if you #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newspm.txt",1,S] are {using|utilizing|withing|making use of} {any|any type of|any kind of|any sort of} {herbal|natural|organic} {preparations|prep works|plannings} (such as St. As your {body|physical body} {gets|obtains|acquires} #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newspm.txt",1,S] {used|utilized|made use of} to the {medicine|medication} these {side {effects|results|impacts}|adverse effects|negative effects} {may|might|could} {disappear|vanish|go away}. Levitra {{inhibits|prevents|hinders} this chemical and {provides|offers|supplies|gives}|{provides|offers|supplies|gives} and {inhibits|prevents|hinders} this chemical} for a longer and #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newspm.txt",1,S] {firmer|stronger} {erection|construction} in {men|guys} of {any|any type of|any kind of|any sort of} age. Potassium-sparing diuretics such as {spironolactone, triamterene, or amiloride|spironolactone, amiloride, or triamterene|triamterene, spironolactone, or amiloride|triamterene, amiloride, or spironolactone|amiloride, spironolactone, or triamterene|amiloride, triamterene, or spironolactone}, or potassium supplements {should|ought to|must|need to} be {given|provided|offered} {only|just|simply} for {documented|recorded} hypokalemia, {{and|and also|as well as} then|and after that|then|and afterwards} with #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newspm.txt",1,S] {caution|care}, {since|because|considering that|given that} they {may|might|could} {lead to|result in|cause|bring about} {a significant|a considerable|a substantial} {increase|boost|rise} of {serum|lotion} potassium. Viagra {mild|moderate|light} {side {effects|results|impacts}|adverse effects|negative effects|negative side effects} #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newspm.txt",1,S] {include|consist of|feature} light {sensitivity|sensitiveness|level of sensitivity}, nosebleeds, {{numbness|pins and needles|tingling|feeling numb}, burning, or tingling|{numbness|pins and needles|tingling|feeling numb}, tingling, or burning|burning, {numbness|pins and needles|tingling|feeling numb}, or tingling|burning, tingling, or {numbness|pins and needles|tingling|feeling numb}|tingling, {numbness|pins and needles|tingling|feeling numb}, or burning|tingling, burning, or {numbness|pins and needles|tingling|feeling numb}}, {heartburn|pyrosis ( heartburn )|heartburn ( pyrosis )}, {diarrhea|looseness of the bowels}, {insomnia|sleep problems|sleeplessness|sleeping disorder|sleeping disorders|sleep loss}, {headache|frustration|problem|hassle}, {changes|modifications|adjustments} in {color|shade} {vision|eyesight}, {muscle|muscular tissue} {aches|pains}, and flushing. Cialis is {available|offered|readily available} by {prescription|prescribed} and {must|should|needs to|has to} not be taken by {people|individuals} to {whom|which|who} #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newspm.txt",1,S] it was not {prescribed|recommended|suggested}. You {should|ought to|must|need to} not {use|utilize|make use of} Depakote if #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newspm.txt",1,S] you have liver {disease|illness|condition}, a urea {cycle|pattern} {disorder|condition|ailment|problem}, or {a genetic|a hereditary} {disorder|condition|ailment|problem} such as Alpers' {disease|illness|condition} or Alpers-Huttenlocher {syndrome|disorder} ({especially|particularly|specifically} in {a child|a kid|a youngster} {{younger|more youthful} {than|compared to}|below} 2 {years {old|aged}|years of ages}). Your {doctor|physician|medical professional} {will|will certainly} be interested to {know|understand} if you have {{high|higher} blood {pressure|stress|tension}|hypertension}, {diabetes|diabetic issues}, {heart {disease|illness|condition}|heart problem|cardiovascular disease}, {kidney|renal|renal system} {disease|illness|condition}, {high|higher} cholesterol {levels|degrees} or #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newspm.txt",1,S] liver {disease|illness|condition}. There are {various|different|numerous} {{types|kinds} of|kinds of|sorts of} {eczema|dermatitis|chronic eczema}, with #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newspm.txt",1,S] {slightly|somewhat|a little} {different|various} {causes|reasons|sources} {and|and also|as well as} {symptoms|signs|signs and symptoms}. These infections {may|might|could} #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newspm.txt",1,S] {require|need|call for} {treatment|therapy} with {appropriate|suitable|proper|ideal} antifungal {therapy|treatment} and/or discontinuance of {treatment|therapy} with Pulmicort TURBUHALER. We did {{a lot|a great deal|a whole lot} of|a great deal of|a bunch of} {{searching|browsing|looking} and {comparing|contrasting|reviewing}|{comparing|contrasting|reviewing} and {searching|browsing|looking}} to {give|provide|offer} you this {offer|deal}, #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newspm.txt",1,S] and we {are {sure|certain}|make sure|make certain} you {will|will certainly} {be able to|have the ability to} {appreciate|value|cherish} it, {getting|obtaining} the {required|needed|called for} {amount|quantity} of {medicine|medication} {in no time|in no time at all|quickly|in a snap} {at all|whatsoever}. Both {mild|moderate|light} and {more|much more|a lot more} {serious|major|severe|significant} {side {effects|results|impacts}|adverse effects|negative effects|negative side effects} are {possible|feasible}, although {serious|major|severe|significant} #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newspm.txt",1,S] ones are {quite|rather|fairly} {rare|unusual|uncommon}. You {will|will certainly} be {prescribed|recommended|suggested} the {dose|dosage|amount} {based on|based upon} your {needs|requirements|demands|necessities} and {different|various} {factors|elements|aspects} #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newspm.txt",1,S] you {will|will certainly} {report|state|mention} to your {doctor|physician|medical professional}. Antabuse {works|functions} by {causing|triggering|creating|inducing} {vertigo|dizziness}, {chest|breast} {pain|discomfort}, flushing, {unconsciousness|unfamiliarity}, {low|reduced} blood {pressure|stress|tension}, arrhythmias, thirst, {nausea|queasiness}, convulsions or {fast|quick|rapid} {heartbeats|heart beats} in {patients|clients|people} {using|utilizing|making use of} {alcohol|liquor|alcoholic beverages}, {as well as|in addition to|along with|and also} such {products|items} as {tonics|restoratives}, {sauces|dressings}, #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newspm.txt",1,S] {colognes|perfumes|fragrances}, {antiseptics|bactericides}, aftershaves, {stains|discolorations|spots}, {cough|coughing} and {cold|winter|cool|chilly} {medicines|medications}, vinegars, paint {thinners|slimmers}, {perfumes|fragrances}, {lacquers, mouthwashes or solvents|lacquers, solvents or mouthwashes|mouthwashes, lacquers or solvents|mouthwashes, solvents or lacquers|solvents, lacquers or mouthwashes|solvents, mouthwashes or lacquers}. This {includes|consists of} #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newspm.txt",1,S] {prescription|prescribed}, {over-the-counter|non-prescription|over the counter}, vitamin, {and|and also|as well as} {herbal|natural|organic} {products|items}. Taking this {medication|medicine|drug} #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newspm.txt",1,S] {will|will certainly} not {prevent|avoid|stop} you from passing HIV to {{other|various other} {people|individuals|folks}|other individuals}. {fever|high temperature}, {headache|migraine|frustration}, neck {stiffness|tightness|rigidity}, {chills|cools|coldness}, {increased|enhanced|boosted|raised} {sensitivity|level of sensitivity} to light, purple {spots|areas|places} on the #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newspm.txt",1,S] skin, and/or seizure (convulsions) or. This Medication Guide is {only|just|simply} {about|regarding|concerning} the {risk|danger|threat} of {suicidal|self-destructive} {thoughts|ideas} #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newspm.txt",1,S] {and|and also|as well as} {actions|activities} with antidepressant {medicines|medications}. This {may|might|could} be #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newspm.txt",1,S] {administered|provided|carried out} as {a single|a solitary} {daily|everyday|day-to-day} {dose|dosage} or {may|might|could} be {{given|provided|offered} in|given up} {two|2} divided {doses|dosages}, as 4 mg/kg every 12 {hours|hrs}. No {overall|general|total} {differences|distinctions} in {effectiveness|efficiency|performance} or {safety|security|safety and security} were {observed|noted} #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newspm.txt",1,S] {between|in between} the {elderly|senior} {and|and also|as well as} {younger|more youthful} {patients|clients|people|individuals}. In {bacterial|microbial} infections, the eyes are {often|frequently|typically|commonly|usually} {bright|brilliant|intense} red {and|and also|as well as} after {periods|durations} of being {closed|shut}, the eye {lids|covers} {stick {together|with each other}|stick} ({especially|particularly|specifically} in the {morning|early morning}). {Discolored|Stained|Blemished|Tarnished} mucous is #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newspm.txt",1,S] {often|frequently|typically|commonly|usually} {seen|viewed} ({so-called|supposed} "{dirty|filthy|unclean} eyes"). It's not {recommended|suggested|advised} to take Zimulti with {alcohol|liquor|alcoholic beverages} as it {will|will certainly} {cause|trigger|create|induce} Zimulti, liver and {stomach|tummy|belly} {problems|issues|troubles} and {may|might|could} {also|likewise|additionally} {affect|impact|influence|have an effect on} the {way|method|means} the {drug|medicine} #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newspm.txt",1,S] {works|functions}. The {infant|baby|little one} was {developing|establishing|creating} well at 4.5 months {of age|old} {and|and also|as well as} no {adverse|unfavorable|negative|damaging} {effects|results|impacts} #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newspm.txt",1,S] were {reported|stated}. You {should|ought to|must|need to} not #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newspm.txt",1,S] {combine|incorporate|integrate} your {dose|dosage|amount} of Avodart with isoniazid, ketoconazole, delavirdine, imatinib, nefazodone, atazanavir, {ritonavir, erythromycin or itraconazole|ritonavir, itraconazole or erythromycin|erythromycin, ritonavir or itraconazole|erythromycin, itraconazole or ritonavir|itraconazole, ritonavir or erythromycin|itraconazole, erythromycin or ritonavir}, as {interactions|communications} {have|have actually} been {reported|stated|mentioned}. You {may|might|could} {{need|require} to|have to|should} {use|utilize|make use of} blood #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newspm.txt",1,S] {pressure|stress|tension} {medication|medicine|drug} for the {rest|remainder} of your life. If you take {an antidepressant or {psychiatric|psychological} |a {psychiatric|psychological} or antidepressant} {medication|medicine|drug}, call your {doctor|physician|medical professional} {right away|immediately|as soon as possible|promptly} #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newspm.txt",1,S] if you have {signs|indications|indicators} of {a serious|a major|a severe|a significant} {drug|medicine|medication} {interaction|communication}, {including|consisting of}: {confusion|complication}, memory {problems|issues|troubles}, {feeling|really feeling} {hyperactive|hyper} ({mentally|psychologically|emotionally} or {physically|literally}), loss of {coordination|sychronisation|control}, {muscle|muscular tissue|muscle mass} twitching, {shivering|shuddering}, {sweating, {diarrhea|looseness of the bowels}, and/or {fever|high temperature}|sweating, {fever|high temperature}, and/or {diarrhea|looseness of the bowels}|{diarrhea|looseness of the bowels}, sweating, and/or {fever|high temperature}|{diarrhea|looseness of the bowels}, {fever|high temperature}, and/or sweating|{fever|high temperature}, sweating, and/or {diarrhea|looseness of the bowels}|{fever|high temperature}, {diarrhea|looseness of the bowels}, and/or sweating}. When {using|utilizing|making use of} Zimulti you {will|will certainly} {{need|require|really need} to|have to|should} {try|attempt} to {avoid|prevent|stay clear of|stay away from} {other|various other} #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newspm.txt",1,S] {medications|medicines}, {especially|particularly|specifically} antidepressants, rifampicin, HIV {medications|medicines}, epilepsy {drugs|medicines}, antidiabetes {medications|medicines}, {medicines|medications} for {weight {loss|reduction}|weight management|weight-loss|fat burning|fat loss}, {depression|misery} {medications|medicines}, St. No #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newspm.txt",1,S] {significant|considerable|substantial} lethality was {observed|noted} in {male {and|and also|as well as} {female|women}|{female|women} {and|and also|as well as} male} {mice|computer mice} {and|and also|as well as} rats at {single|solitary} {oral|dental} {doses|dosages} up to 4 g/kg. You {will|will certainly} {have to|need to} {make {sure|certain}|ensure|make certain|see to it} you {always|constantly} {tell|inform} your {doctor|physician|medical professional} if #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newspm.txt",1,S] you {develop|establish|create} {any|any type of|any kind of|any sort of} {serious|major|severe|significant} {reactions|responses} to Retin-A such as hives, {swelling|puffinessing} of the lips or tongue, closing of your {throat|neck}, {trouble|difficulty|problem} breathing or {swelling|puffinessing} of your face. Boswellia {has|has actually} {also|likewise|additionally} #file_linkslinks/imp_files/newspm.txt",1,S] been {found|discovered|located} to be {useful|helpful|beneficial|valuable} for {a number of|a variety of} {other|various other} {disorders|conditions|ailments|problems} {and|and also|as well as} {best|finest|ideal} for {treating|dealing with} Back Pain, Knee Pain, Joint Pain {and|and also|as well as} Arthritis.
Sunday, 16 August 2015
Check it out : the twerp is back. "matthewjamesv@wwwbox.tk" email this time vs "groundroute@wwwbox.tk" last time and 178.73.193.137 vs 178.73.193.207, but otherwise identical, all the way down to the fucktarded naming conventions. "Linklink" srsly ? if $websitesite > $webwebsite, too ?
Someone's been running a broken spam script for over a week now. What "we'll fight spam by getting ISPs to this and that" ? What "private initiative uses resources more efficiently than corporations" ? What "small firms are the engine of economic growth" ?
Nobody cares anymore. Forget "nobody does anything useful" anymore - it's a plain case of nobody does anything well anymore, not even the people doing shit that's patently useless.
Everyone just wants to make money while they sleep - but the part where they sleep is not negotiable. If there's some money ok, if not try something else, maybe, but while sleeping. Always Asleep!
Sunday, 16 August 2015
Both IPs belong to frootvpn.com, "FrootVPN - Providing High Speed, Ultra Secure, Encrypted and Quality VPN service", "Let us help you fight internet surveillance!".
Except you can't actually "Start using FrootVPN now!". So it's a front.
Sunday, 16 August 2015
Heh. I'm sure it's worth it, going to all that fucking trouble, just so that twerps can twerp.