Truth Engineering

It is or it is not

2012-01-14T18:05:00.000-08:00

I would have used 'tis and tain't but for the taint that might come forth. So, what is this about? Well, we're going to look at issues raised by a growing set of people, such as the late Christopher Hitchens. You see, this type of discussion is central to truth engineering, especially as it relates to T-issues.

--

As well, we see both sides of the arguments claiming to know. On the one side, it's phrased in terms of having fact at hand (to wit, discussions at the Richard Dawkins site), as we expect with science (except, evidence has become increasingly wrapped within computational/mathematical modeling that requires us to put into place the necessary filters/lens, etc. -- recursive issues) as it has evolved in the past few centuries. On the other side, there are statements about material obtained via various types of means, with revelation (whole slew of sacred literature) being one of these.

So, it's like a fence for the reasonable folks. There are two sides, yet one may (ought to be allowed to) waffle on both sides (actually, operational effectiveness may require us to do just that). Too, nuances come into play on both sides. All of this is relevant to the discourse, however we are using an 'engineering' ontology, so that means the following assignment.

It is not -- argues this: any claims that might have theistic leanings are basically bonkers, as in delusional (look it up on Google). We can wrap ourselves in the Mystery (see Krauss, et al) or Evolution (see Dawkins) or ...
It is -- the converse, in a sense: there is a whole lot to look at here as this is an age-old issue. From our viewpoint, though, we'll just say that there exists a meme (or set of memes) that follow Anselm's argument of the ontological nature. Or, in other words, we have times when something outside of the human limits (mind you, only offering the use of a symmetric entity to which we can project) has a role to play in our decision processes. For now, the use of 'meme' means that we can draw benefits (potentially quite remarkable -- hence, the motivation) without taking the discussion to the nth degree (that cannot currently be resolved for many folks - okay?).

Before we proceed, there needs to be a statement of a disclosure nature. That is, on which side is the blogger? Well, it may be that using 'It is not' as the basis for argument may imply something about that. But, then, again, that question will remain unanswered, for now, in an attempt to be balanced.

---

Now, again, one might ask if an a-theist (some say, the 'It is not' side) can claim to be scientific (and that might imply a position on the part of the blogger). You know, science does not provide answers in an ultimate sense. There is always a provisional platform that grows in size. Too, that increase in size does not diminish what is not known (at least, from the viewpoint of the less strident mind). If science cannot at this time disprove the meme (or its metaphysical analog), how can one claim to make the decision via science?

---

On the other hand, if one were to argue for the 'It is' claim, why does it have to take the ultimate leap to describing what exactly is being labelled? You see, the meme would be an operational flavor; nowhere within the context of its use would there be any requirement to subsume the essence (that which is labelled) within some limited sensibility. Look, if science has increasing boundaries, so too will this argument.

---

Okay, we'll be going back and forth on this. Mind you, the meme mentioned above is a type of closure. As a joke, one could say it deals with compactification (use any sense that you want). Yet, the issue is that we have to assume closure, in many cases, since we have undecidable regions (in both time and space) lurking. You know, we do that anyway with our common sense. Lots of times, it works.

With computational complexity being a core issue with 'truth' (only one of many other things, so don't leap too far in trying to extract implications here), we cannot use the 'omniscience' approach (though, one wonders how the 'It is not' side is going to look at this -- we'll look at this later) that seems to underlie some notions (those who ponder such things do not know how we can know the truth behind any modern situation with having our arms around the whole thing -- oh yes, some have taken mathematics as the basis meanwhile ignoring quasi-empirical issues). I say 'underlies' as it seems to be that we have a basis moving about down there. Truthfully? Many seem to just jump right over the matter; my hope is to show that they're straddling the fence when they do so.

That brings up the first requirement. Show that there is a fence. At the same time, discuss the symmetry related to this fence's dynamics.

---

How long will this take? Why would there be a rush? Mankind has fought over these matters for thousands of years. My interest is trying to set a framework that will allow increased insights (as well, will provide for some interesting discussions and experiments).

Remarks:

01/15/2012 -- Jobs, labor, and disrespect.

01/15/2012 -- Hitch lives on. In more ways than one. ..., One might say that this is the middle way (variously characterized throughout our history on the planet). From the viewpoint of product development, middle out is the only way that finds success.

Modified: 01/15/2012

Posts of interest - 2011

2011-12-31T06:22:00.001-08:00

As a means (an attempt) to freeze a point in time (which we know is not possible), the last post of 2011 will list the top four posts in terms of having been read (well, views, anyway). Perhaps, this will be a yearly event.

Aside: As said in Mission and Method, posts are to contribute to a theme, though there may be divergent ones from time to time. Blogs allow categories, but these are problematic since they collect and present in a time order. From time to time, there ought to be a super-post that gives a more coherent view (here is an example - Truth, Fiction, and Finance). Perhaps, that type of thing will be done more often in the coming year.

Posts of interest, as of today:

-- Leverage and truth II -- From 2008. We all love leverage. Engineering has applied this everywhere with all of our gadgets. But, we also know about limbs; too far can be problematic. What about cutting the limb between yourself and the tree? You see, we do this latter with computation. I can explain if you give me time; it's one motivation for what I've been trying to do here for the past few years. Why no hurry? You see, every bit of time elapse makes the argument stronger. The big problem is that the boys (and some girls) who like risk (emotional failure on their part - this, too, can be explained) do not just incur it themselves. No, they drag along the hapless. The 99% need to get a grasp on the themes of this blog; it's at the core of computational modeling where we can bring in the human element in a way that has only been considered peripheral.

-- Last post for 2008 -- From 2008. Too many seats-of-the-pants decisions by the best and brightest keep things in turmoil. Somehow, we've accepted that as the norm. But, then the dryness of a scientific approach becomes more than tedious, it's a distraction. What ought to be the balance, and how do we attain such a thing?

-- Extrapolation, calibration, truth -- From 2007. So much is wrapped in knowing. Always has been. The newer methods can be more problematic, though, that we've seen in the past. Now, who is to do the knowing? Obviously, the way things are now, not everybody. Perhaps, that will always be. But, would it not be nice to think that those who have the talents, the resources, et al are not just looking out for themselves? Actually, whom can be trusted is a key issue that we'll address, again and again? Also, how we know the value of things is key, too.

-- OWS Occupy Wall Street News | Plutocracy Files -- From 2011. Have to love these people who not only put themselves into the class of the 99% but also do something to get attention and to try to attempt change. Before this happened, it seemed that the pall thrown on everyone by the uppers (CEOs, et al) had become an interminable yoke. That is, this pall: if you're not the best and brightest, or if you are not motivated by greed, or a whole number of other things that needs to be listed, then you're of no use. The pall says: we'll export any potential job for you off to the hapless elsewhere who can be more easily exploited; too, we'll make is so that you're indentured forever.

Remarks:

12/31/2011 --

Modified: 01/01/2012

Christopher Hitchens

2011-12-16T14:54:00.000-08:00

R.I.P. (in the many senses -- at some point, will bring forth truth issues, both small 't' and large 'T' -- paraphrasing one comment, he launched avalanches of words/concepts that disallowed precision of a measurable sort)

Also, am trying to maintain a prayerful, and respectful, mindset (never got a chance to discuss my points with him) while traversing his broadly ranging work.

The guy was so right on so many things. What a viewpoint! To wit: When the King saved God. Many burned, on the several sides, of this issue.

He came over here, like all of the others. It's been 400+ years now. And, we still have so much to learn.

Remarks:

01/25/2012 -- Margaret Kimberley's take (quoted several places: example).

01/19/2012 -- Notice the comment of someone dreaming of Hitch's state (this can raise a whole lot of discussion, eventually). Just ran across this debate, in 2008, between Christopher and his younger brother, Peter, at Grand Valley State University. Interesting.

01/15/2012 -- Hitch motivates a series: It is or It is not. Hitch lives on. In more ways than one.

01/13/2012 -- Thinking about Hitch, and the wide-range of topics with which he was involved, will motivate several themes this year. Here is the first one (see the Aside -- to be expanded). Now, coming here will be a discussion of Tis (as in, it is so) and Taint (as in, it ain't so). Guess which will be assigned to which side of the argument? Some would say, and so it is (the operational stance that moves its definitions along as it learns -- you know, the business leaders (yes, Jamie, you and your ilk) think that they're smart for learning how to broaden their pockets and how to increase the flow into such -- world-class jerks, actually).

01/02/2012 -- We'll look at what might be an oxymoron (or almost so, as a whole lot of discussion will ensue about this): atheistic scientist. There are two words here of various meanings. The former denotes a position on a question that may very well be unanswerable; yet, one does have a right to conjecture that God is a man-made creation (ah, creationist thinking?). So, it would be a working hypothesis. Now, unanswerable? Yes, in the terms of falsifiable-ness, cannot be phrased publicly sufficiently to allow tests (and, as in, don't fall for all the contentions about 'literalness' as being necessary to resolve the thing personally). The latter term ought to have connotations dealing with testable-ness, repeatable-ness, and much more. Too, a moving platform, albeit with a more firm basis in the future from current work, hopefully. To an end? Ah, just as we see no end to the horizon, why ought we see some limit to that which is (may be) unanswerable? Call it what you will. Your recognition of such, nor whatever name you apply, really has no effect whatsoever, except in a limited sense. As, the hubris of the atheist is (can be) as much of an issue as is the idiocy of the fundamentalist. Remember, our states of knowledge are becoming increasingly wrapped within our lens, filters, and what have you; do not all of these have their foundations in mathematics (quasi-empiricism) and our prowess at material manipulations (uncertainty, et al)? By the way, consider that that which is unanswerable (and unknown) may very well have an 'echo' feature which we can understand, and use for our (collective) benefits. Granted the signal may come from our conscious being (oh yes, we'll have to consider essence as opposed to property), yet from whence that?

12/22/2011 -- Remembering, Christopher, at the clear-thinking oasis.

12/20/2011 -- Apropos quote from Paul Wallace: Both the closed-hearted scientism of atheist hardliners and the narrow creationism of religious fundamentalists kill our strange and beautiful world by flattening it beyond repair.

12/17/2011 -- Mocker meets the Mockee, one might say. That theme would offer much to discuss. We'll collect the several of these that Christopher's views might have brought to the fore. Too, as a focal point, the t-issues become very interesting. Perhaps, Hitchens was an angel in disguise.

12/17/2011 -- Our import underwent, and remarked on, the barbarism of waterboarding; power needs its carvers.

Modified: 01/25/2012

Nitty Gritty Truth II

2011-12-13T05:33:00.001-08:00

Foreword: Second of a series (the basis).

As we stumble around our lives, which we all do (don't you just love those eternally optimistic sorts -- ignorance is bliss applies, in a sense), from time to time we run across things that make sense, even if they weave in and out of our awareness.

You see, the whole intent (speaking teleologically) is to have a stable framework wrapped within a chaotic blanket (now, having said that, we also could talk the inverse -- chaotic core wrapped with stability). Ah, the difference? The former is that of the one who sees the nitty gritty.

Such as, those in the ring who know that they have to stand on their own two feet. Who is there to help them in their endeavor? The old guy trainer? The ref? The fans (this for all of those who are vicariously living through others -- via the web -- via pushing our young men and women into harms' (meant to characterize the multitudinous facets to this thing) ways for stupid reasons --- and much more ...)?

---

So, again, the former is the bottom-up view to which we'll be paying a lot of attention. Why? It's always been cast under the rug. What GEK III brought to boxing? An excellent mind and superb word artistry. In fact, the whole thing about his work was its uplifting (we'll go into this technically, as it's essential mathematically as we grapple with complex systems and the consequences of stupid peoples' -- would say politicos but am being polite -- ontological failings) nature.

Yes, GEK III saw through all of the confusions which lead to things like the chimera chase.

The latter (see above) is the view of those who like top-down thinking (myriads, but mostly the 1% -- that ilk). Brass? Aristocrats? Essentially, those who cannot clean up after their messings; yes, unfortunately, diaper changing of the elite is a nitty gritty task for bottom-up people.

Ah, so much to discuss in all of this.

---

So, for now, consider the efforts of two facing off in a ring. To what end? Oh, we know about the money, sometimes. That does not happen to the many -- the reality of sports not being an escape for the many (rather, only the few).

Granted, we can itemize the motivations, both good and bad. In any case, it's all over in a matter of rounds or seconds. So, too, on the field, games end. Of course, ego-related effects will linger.

Yet, those athletic efforts have a larger meaning (a broader scope - aside: it's not enough, colleges & universities, to prostitute academics). And, I'm not talking just 'lifting' here. Rather, they can be metaphor. That'll be a later topic.

Consider this, please? On the two feet, the being can loom beyond the sun to the vast expanses of the universe(s). Wait! Isn't that usually done in a navel contemplating mode (rather than under the stress of effort)?

---

So, there are two things here to bring forth on another day. Truth is not an entity found at the limits of the abstract (not entirely, I should say). Rather, it's integral to the nitty gritty (a paraphrase of Joel Orr, author of 'Every Man a Hero, Every Woman a Coach'). Ah, how can we show this?

Well, GEK III's insights lead me to consider how sports may just have some deeper meaning ('deep' in the broadest sense -- again, does not imply, in any way, that the current mess is right -- to wit, The Atlantic's article on the NCAA -- ouch!! -- I'm no longer a fan of these hypocritical dealings).

Too, though, we don't have to go far out (even to the plane's view) to wonder why all of those projected things (yes, we'll have to get psychological, and spiritual -- pecking order, for one) are of such importance to the moment. Oh, winning? What about the rewards of showing up for the game (et al)?

---

You see, those pushing the 'now' seem to ignore that it's one dimension on a multi-dimensional thing. Too, we have not learned all that we can about spatial issues related to the matter (as a hint, we'll have a inter-disciplinarian's bailiwick to unwind -- un-thread, actually).

Yes, even in the ring, such contemplative themes can (ought to?) be of essence. GEK III, no doubt, saw that. But, some of these things cannot be word-i-fied. Yes, one has to experience the nitty gritty to get to the truth (ah, 'being' at last).

---

Oh, what about those who push buttons and kill people (many times, innocent women, children, and old men) in what is essentially a surgical strike? Or, they have an elite team do the dirty work while covering up the nitty gritty. Do we know these people?

Aside: having been Army, and having brothers who are Marines, lies behind a worldview that rails at views that do not understand the necessity for feet on the ground, in the muck, and such.

Remarks:

12/16/2011 -- Charles P. Pierce's blog post on Christopher Hitchens today reminded me to look at his post on George.

12/13/2011 -- We have, essentially, been (allowed ourselves to be) overlaid with an abstracted mesh (mess) that is deleterious to our (and the planet's) health and that is unsustainable in the longer run. Shocking statement? What we need to see is how the uprisings of the 99%, and the protesters (Person of the Year), are nature's (life's) effort to cast off this yoke that has always been instituted (defined, created, kept in place) by the 1% (best and brightest, divinely-ordained kings, ...) for several reasons: they could, they had the means, they have the motivations, ... I'll state it again: there has been no instance on this planet where a true peer-run politic was allowed to become reality (arguable is the point that this is a fantasy, anyway). And, it continues to be the case that those who came over here, for whatever reason, are the ones to whom we need to look to see what went wrong. ... Uprisings we can study, too (they are legion, continuously manifesting throughout our history on the planet); in many cases, these were the results of talented souls finding themselves bound into (without any means to loosen) the constraints/burdens that have always been the lot of the have-nots (many ways to characterize this) and trying to shrug these things off (not that which A. Rand saw -- even, though, her prose dazzled everyone -- yes, everyman is Atlas!). .... Incidentally, these blogs are meant to deal with issues that need attention especially since they've been wrapped with intellectual cloaks that are meant to make these things palatable to those who rule ('potemkin' might be used here). ...

Modified: 12/16/2011

Nitty Gritty Truth I

2011-12-09T06:38:00.000-08:00

As a way of introduction, these NittyGrittyTruth posts will be about George Edward Kimball, III who passed away in July of this year. And more, these will look at George's impact upon the planet's inhabitants.

George, the penultimate iconoclast, had an American pedigree that dates back to the beginning of the stirrings that coming to this side of the pond brought forth in the hearts of those who left their old countries yearning for a better life (albeit at costs (detrimental impacts on the already resident populace, et al) that are yet to be figured). His pre-boomer experiences are telling, to boot. And, his luck was that the prior generation had started to describe (modernize and retell about) the ‘void’ which will figure prominently in these post.

In a sense, as George W (not Bush, definitely) was a constellation for us to ponder about over the ages, so, too, can GEK III (how we’ll refer to the wonderful fella) be more than a splash as was HST who blasted out further than his basis. GEK III’s basis was solid to which fact we’ll pay a lot of attention.

George was a good kid (we'll explain this, to boot), the quintessential world citizen. In short, the America in which he was born let him down, as it has all the rest of us. Of course, HST, et al, were very much capable of pointing out those failures. America? Where the likes of Newt is listened to? Sick at the core, GEI III might say (might be paraphrased as saying) as he, creatively, demonstrated these problems, if we looked closely.

The dreams of our childhoods? Well, we found out that they were fantasy propagated by old men and their machinations. Understanding this was a major leap forward for George albeit such knowledge is painful to hold. His humor was a try to abate that deep insight, one could say. Note, please (as an example), his cheeky take on the classic American boy with his toys in the picture in the Alex Belth article, tin badge and all.

That some jerk happened to be acting out what he had seen in the movies, or on TV, and that George’s head was in the wrong place at the wrong time set loose dynamics that he had to learn to control. We’ll look more closely at those types of things, as it is essentially what we all face everyday.

This old medic will tell you that the health industry failed us, and was not its progress largely American-based, too boot? We exported our dim ways (to wit, Japan’s lost generation, and much more -- say the 'mistreatment' of returning veterans).

As GEK III might say, it was not those who work in any of these areas that is the problem (albeit that some might be characterized as faulty - to be nice). He knew the importance of the human spirit. Rather, it was the system that de-evolved (actually, was never let to evolve). But, those topics are another whole story, and we’ll get technical, from time to time.

George’s efforts at attaining balance were, essentially, thwarted all around in ways that will be interesting to analyze. Of course, when has the world ever been healthy for its kids (yes, even those of the upper-upper have their issues)? Our task? Build such a world. An immense military-industrial complex as the foundation? Perhaps, if the side of it that stresses world health, the capabilities of the Seabees, and such. Naturally, there would be some policing (had I been in Lawrence at the time, I would have voted for GEK III).

Mind you, swimming in the void and looking for structure is daily dilemma of us all. Hopefully, the people that we know, and the sub-systems (alluding to the fact that no system is it) that we encounter, will be more an assistance than a hindrance. GEK III was solid, in many ways, as his friend will tell you. One comment talked about his metaphysical stature (we’ll delve there, too – we ought to have some comments on what St. Peter and GEK III had as a discourse).

This series has no planned end. The topics will be wide-ranging, as was GEK III’s mind. Some words that seem to come to mind, or apropos to the undertaking, would be from JC’s ‘Man in Black’ and BD’s (BZ’s) ‘Chimes of Freedom’ (which, for GEK III might relate to some tales of those naturally-based methods of which HST was so fond). Yes, GEK III has many lessons for us all.

Remarks:

12/23/2011 -- Void? Excuse my laziness. Of course, I meant 'existential despair' with many senses. There are analogs that could be of use, to boot. TPD has a good (fairly modern and without the claptrap coming out of bad psychology) take on what this means for talent. Can we really bottle up our insights? How many have used drugs, or alcohol, to grasp at creativity, for instance?

12/16/2011 -- Did Christopher Hitchens understand America as it could be?

12/13/2011 -- See NGT II.

12/09/2011 -- Some have used 'bad ass' in reference to GEK III. We'll go into that: the motivation, the mis-characterization, the meanings behind the mis-quote, ... 'archetypal' would be a very much better way to approach this subject.

12/09/2011 -- George's remarks about editors applies. Yet, from time to time, typos (and the like) will be corrected since these posts will be written without use of a high-falutin' tool.

Modified: 12/23/2011

December, 2007

2011-12-05T15:06:00.000-08:00

That was awhile ago. Since then, things tumbled (the DOW got to about where it ought to be). The chimera started to re-inflate, yet not without lots of help from Big Ben who just recently kicked the printing presses up to high gear.

---

So, again, December, 2007. After awakening to the idiocy that had abounded while the blogger was working on real problems, it became apparent that the financial guys had gone too far (that post was written on Christmas day, of 2007).

Tranche and trash was added later.

---

It's obvious that the wizards are confounding issues with their money, their lobbyists, and snowing people with mathematics and computation (the most popular post of the FEDaerated blog). How do we get a 'reset' going that would help build a better basis?

---

So much has gone into building the 'market' economy, is it possible to delta off of that in some incremental mode? To what, though?

OWS talks about symptoms. It is not a solution definitional system.

---

Politics? We have seen how that descends. The story now is that those who get elected to Washington come away rich. They even pull silly games with the Street. Ah, yes, are politicos not those who salivate with they see (or think of) a buck (or have it passed beneath their nose by lobbyists)?

---

If you haven't noticed, it's a real mess. Of course, the 1% likes it since they can muddy themselves, and us, as they rake in their takings. The 99%? Of course, that is where the real hurts always happens.

This is a new meme; perhaps, it'll be helpful.

---

Disclosure: In 2007, I started to look at finance to see why the younger ones had queued up there in droves during the prior 10 years. Well, given the shenanigans, it was obvious that the open field (relaxed oversight, greed as good, etc.) allowed many to make money; at what cost? Oh, yes, impoverishing of the many (near-zero). So, it was seen, in 2007, that the walls were beginning to shake; who thought to what extent? Those who were benefiting still were expecting bonuses. You see, the whole game quit (markets froze, bankers sat on their money, people like Jamie became focals of too much attention, et al) since the players knew that it was a crooked game (wake up, Ben) and stopped playing when it became clear that they could make decisions that would cost them (ah, Bank of America, et al). Yet, at the same time, these people didn't acknowledge the reality (given that we can know the actual state -- too, they play to win, expending enormous energies to ensure that they win -- ah, then, the re-insurance scheme was shown to be faulty, to boot). The lemon lesson kicked in; if you and your peers are crooks, who do you trust? Oh, the American taxpayer from whom can be extracted oodles without any side-effect (not so, says the OWS - before them, the tea-party). So, it became obvious that finance was a lot of fiction (recap -- how did we allow this?). It was unsettling to see Iceland fail, since they listened to the idiots (see Remarks 02/03/2011) and made themselves vulnerable. So, too Ireland. England (with its thrust on finance) ought to have known better. And, now we're seeing holes all over Europe which Ben is trying to fill with his cheap bucks. Since 2007, we have had changes in laws. Yet, there is truth to the statement that those who legislate now become rich while in office. Too, they let those who skim off the top do so without any threat (the stench comes from systemic pustules). The ca-pital-sino needs to be reigned in; so too, those new kings who run rampant over the populace. That the 1%-99% meme brought forward some recognition was nice to see, too, albeit a little reminiscent of earlier times.

Remarks:

12/07/2011 -- Jim Rogers sees saver sacking, too.

12/06/2011 -- Congress wants to clean up its act.

Modified: 12/07/2011

Carvers and carvees

2011-11-22T17:23:00.000-08:00

Or, I might have titled this: Thanksgiving thoughts.

-----

We have a lot to be thankful for. Itemizing these things can be interesting and, even, beneficial.

That we saw a pepper applier, recently, work with such efficiency and zeal brought to mind several questions. Such as, are we any better now than we were 400 years ago? Why do the carvers (and the burners and the hangers -- as in Iran, ever see a squadron of cranes used to dangle bodies by the neck?) put so much effort into getting efficient?

Consider, please, this example of quartering. We can thank Edward III for letting the mode become commonplace. 'Put the people in their place' sort of strategy, using tactics like the Treason Act.

The image shows Sir Thomas Armstrong being worked on, posthumously.

This? In 1684 which is a mere eight years before the madness descended upon Salem. Can we be thankful that we have progressed beyond such things?

Some think that the evidence against Sir Thomas was doctored. Have we not seen that sort of thing in our times?

Why does all of this still have some ring of truth (the core focus of this blog) to it in these modern times?

Remarks:

12/16/2011 -- This guy is a national treasure, almost. Everyone ought to see this wateboarding video (from two years ago). Gosh, Dick, how would you fair? Hitches explains more on this sign of barbarism running rampant.

12/08/2011-- Does it not appear, perhaps, that some of the 1% would be very much appreciative if this type of law were to be brought back?

"In 1536 a more severe law was passed stating that those caught outside of their parish without work would be punished by being whipped through the streets. If caught a second time they could lose an ear and if caught a third time they could be executed."

12/07/2011 -- Looks like Isabella (Hugh Despenser) was as bad as her son, Edward III.

12/06/2011 -- Congress wants to clean up its act.

11/27/2011 -- Further comment.

11/23/2011 -- Salem? Yes, yearly look back.

11/23/2011 -- Though the topic is somewhat troubling, it does represent several things that we will discuss here and in the other forums. Much has been written, and debated, about life, liberty, and more. The U.S.A. is a couple hundred years or so into its unfolding of a framework for peaceful, progressive living. And, there has been no end of troubles, both internal and external.

As well, new things have emerged. For instance, who rules, why they might rule, and how they ought to rule are points that need attention. Of late, power and money have intertwined to create a top-down mess; yes, one successful lobbyist in D.C. says that some problems arise from too much power in Washington that is easily manipulated by the monied set. That is, politicos, in my words, salivate at the sight (or even the thought) of a buck (going into their pockets). There was a recent article about insider trading making some rich.

Yet, at the same time, these types do not properly compensate those who are serving their country. This is another story that we'll look at.

---

That leaders are elected probably naturally trends toward the mess that we see now (the un-workings of the super-committee, for instance). But, we don't want tyrants assuming control, either. What a quandry!

So, who ought to rule? The best-and-brightest? How is this determined? Those who now get such labels have surely made some things worse in many ways. Let me count the ways (Harvard figures). So, that'll be a topic of interest. The recent downturn has so many culprits that it would be funny except that the consequences are dire and real.

---

But, let's consider the royalty and its problems. That is, the old order, in some view.

Why look at these types (beyond the fact that we've had 1000s years of experience with the bumblers)? What has emerged, with the advances in systems (all types), are planetary institutional views (yes, the corporation, that which has been given the rights of an individual by those gowned persons who sit at the bench) that are above any country and really have no control (besides that provided by the egos at the top - and, we all know their motivations).

This reality leads to the need for us to look at the Magna Carta, and the like, as being necessary to rein in the reign of these super types (0.001% or less --- 100% minus 99% is just too gross of a measure). Even the consumer, the supposed backbone of the economy has little power. Why? Bucks have been sucked out of their pockets.

---

What else can we learn from royalty? Well, Edward III, mentioned earlier, is an example. His desire for total control (and we've seen innumerable examples of these types) needed some support, so, of course, we get the divine right of the kings. We'll be looking at this, too.

---

What about the people and their rights? Oh, you mean the common man and woman? If they have any rights, they'll be God given. Was that not stated in one of our documents? The 99%'ers know this and are expressing some deep intuition. However, how do we establish this notion in more than just words on paper?

---

From time to time, there is a harmonious state that comes about. Some of these have even been more than short-lived. Prick the skin of some old hippies (who may now be of the suited class) and there'll be the old blood. Some claim that general education (hey, thanks, early New Englanders) supports a trend that is upward. The educated man does not make a good servant. We all know how slaves (has very many meanings) are kept from their rightful opportunities.

But, does education lead toward money grabbing mindsets? Oh God, please not that. We know that this is not the case; to wit, any of the middle-class scientists who have worked and contributed, any of the economic worker whose remuneration is less than 'rent' (we'll go into this further), and very many more.

For that matter, take any of the enlisted military persons (yes, E series, as in underpaid, under-appreciated, and under the Os whose egos are without bound) who risk life and limb despite the poor treatment (Walter Reed, remember? -- ah, that just barely scraped the surface).

---

Why bring up the Os? Well, the upper ranks there have their royal attitudes (we'll go into this, to boot). Now, there is no cause to misunderstand the intent here. Of course, we need hierarchy for order (perhaps, one could argue that non-uniform distributions of wealth is a natural outcome, to boot -- somewhat). That whole environment is top-down and command driven. Nice. It works; to an extent.

Where have we ever seen a real bottom-up attempt? The modern environment has developed enablers that will allow such a view to become a reality. One of the enablers would be the 'cloud' (though, there are several issues to address -- undecidability, for one).

---

Some have been fortunate enough to have found a bottom-up working experience. These are rare. In some cases, it goes too far as what we see is a coddling of a pampered set (as if they are not replaceable).

---

Aside, what's worse? A pampered (diapered, actually) boss man (or woman) who throws their weight around, has tantrums, and essentially disembowels (see above) their workers or some worker who has the needed talents in some specific framework so as to be cowtowed to by their companies (excessive pay, et al)?

---

There are many ways to carve and oodles in the set of those who can undergo carving. The trait of a wise person? Even if one finds oneself in a carving role, there is a choice about whether or not to fill this role. All sorts of moral arguments can come into play here.

But, a core issue is the following of orders that are wrong, or unconstitutional. So much to discuss there, to boot.

---

So, we're back to something that relates to intelligence, whatever it is. Those who are at the top of the top-down do have talents. Can these be measured a priori? Too, some slough through life as if there is nothing between their ears. However, in the vast majority there is a substantial subset of those who are of sufficient talent to do the roles of the topper-most. Ah, is that so?

Yes, and we do see some upward movement when the environment allows this. In fact, the meritocratic push demonstrates this reality.

Aside: it is atrocious that some allowed gaming of the student financial system in order to line the pockets of fat cats while enveloping students into indentured servant-hood; there were all sorts of this type of gaming that is not necessary nor desirable to a sustainable system.

---

The military does demonstrate the issue, to boot. That is, the uppermosts are not, by need, out of the military academies. Too, rising in the ranks implies successful experience and making the most of the opportunities (mind you, not equivalent to being an opportunist). Somewhat, one might make this claim for a company.

Yet, the latter is too political (we'll get into this). Some who rise in business are good at directing others; in trying situations, some could not wipe their own behinds (ah, that trait of being ineffective in real ways needs a lot of characterization -- fortunately, I've seen enough up close to have a lot of material to use).

---

A group of professionals that I know passed the leadership hat around. When they could, as those who want business per usual could not fathom such a thing (did I mention shallow -- short-term -- thinking (disguised with mathematics -- atrociously) as being an attribute that seems to have been rewarded of late?).

'leadership' (what is that? isn't it sickening hearing 'leaders' brag of themselves?) -- ah, what about leading oneself? It's like the saying of neither a borrower nor a lender be (neither a leader nor a follower be). So much to discuss here.

---

What role can a 'free' man take? How about being autodidact? This role, people, is going to be the most important one in the future that is emerging. And, it will involve 'know how' that is related to more than just collecting money, fame, or other spiritually detrimental assets.

Modified: 12/16/2011

Prevarications, legal and otherwise

2011-11-04T05:29:00.001-07:00

The main question was precipitated by a couple of recent events. However there are several other issues that come into play.

The theme? Is it okay for any agency to go beyond omission of truth (as in, no comment) to out-and-out false tales? Is it okay for the legal apparati to be applied to sustaining such dis-information?

The Justice Department is saying that our government will no longer say that some document isn’t there when it actually is in the files. This use of mis-truth has been going on for 25 years (thanks to Reagan and Meese). The blogger knows for a fact that business has been allowed to do this (next bullet) with impunity, it seems. Of course, the cynics know that we cannot expect the truth, ever (a whole set of issues here); but, do we have to accept that the use of lies can go unbounded? Oh, we tout our scientific selves?

The Cain issues that have arisen of late have forced him to take defensive action. However, it seems that his lawyers did this years ago. How? The forceful signing of some contract that says that one cannot speak the truth about a matter. That is, those who raised the behavioral flag were muzzled. Folks, businesses do this when they enslave their workers, the so-called non-disclosure agreement. Most of these seem to have no temporal limit. How can that be allowed? Is it not unconstitutional (the right to free speech)?

Okay, there ought to be proprietary clamps on information (truth derivatives); however, ought these be without any termination in time? So, how has the use of the non-disclosure ad infinitum been allowed? Ought there not be some timeframe put on these things so that down the pike the truth of matters can become known? Is this not especially true for payoffs and other legal maneuvers to avoid admission of guilt?

So, prevarication is okay if it's done with some institutional backing? Is not that like having our people, with their weapons, decide who is to live and who is to die?

Remarks:

11/04/2011 --

Modified: 11/04/2011

Institutional truths

2011-10-17T13:33:00.000-07:00

Ah, big T or small t?

To be answered, in time. Remember, we have no deadline to attempt tackling PTIME.

---

So, who is more believable? Big endowments or not so?

---

This image is nice. And, it shows a nice place. Know where it is?

Well, it's in that northern region known for its crankiness and such. 'Pilgrim and Puritan'-ville. Many of the most loved, and cherished, ideals of the country came from that region. For instance, they never had plantation mindsets, though they did love their 'indentured' servants.

So, we're looking at a view of Cambridge, MA. In particular, it's the area around a particular institution, known as big H (in these circles).

---

Now, consider this image. Same place but overlaid with some comment.

Ah, now is it being in proximity of the Institution or its members that causes the IQ to rise?

The blogger used to think that about the D.C. area which was full of public servants. Then, it became contractor-ville and lost its appeal. Yes, too many politicos now who are, in fact, enthralled by the buck (salivate at the sight of one).

---

We have already considered a major role for the educational institution. The quandary comes from the fact that large amounts of moolah warps everything and reduces the ability of 'truth' to emerge. Yes, indeed.

---

Aside: By the way, in terms of region, Harvard is in the one that people fled from, in all directions that they could. Hence, we have Rhode Island and Connecticut and New Hampshire. Poor old Maine tried to escape but could not get away from the clutches of that Mass-ass place (don't get me wrong, love the place) until way into the 19th century. Methinks that there is a lot that Harvard has yet to explain nor can it explain it away.

---

We asked before, yes. In particular, this one.

Remarks:

11/04/2011 -- One could probably talk institutional untruths, to boot.

Modified: 11/04/2011

OWS Occupy Wall Street News | Plutocracy Files

2011-10-09T17:38:00.000-07:00

OWS Occupy Wall Street News | Plutocracy Files

Yes, it is almost as if old Rip ought to wake up now. One ought to hope that wonderful things will come out of this manifestation of human spirit.

People are tired of hearing arrogant, best-and-brightest, finance manipulators talk about how good that they are at pulling the ca-pital-sino strings, silly game that it is. And, this is after they trashed our world (remember the Irish) by playing with our money in insane ways.

Were any lessons learned? When will 'near-zero' be understood (in this sense, folks -- a lot of the game playing is not unlike a wish for perpetual motion)?

It has been only two weeks since this event (and the follow-ons) started, yet things have changed really fast. And, given the new order (social media), one has a lot more information available that requires digestion.

---

Thankfully, we can lag in that work. We just hope that the phenomenon persists long enough to lay down some lasting tracks and have real effects.

---

And, we hope that economists learn from this, especially those of the financial ilk.

Remarks:

01/15/2012 -- Jobs, labor, and disrespect.

12/13/2011 -- McKinsey report shows that households hold over 40% of the world's wealth. Hence, the consumer as the major influence on the economy. Now, consider that the household wealth collection (using income in the U.S. as a proxy) is skewed to a very small bunch.

12/05/2011 -- It's interesting how idiotic the supposedly smart can be. The real issue: the failings of an idiot have a small influence; the failings of the 'real idiots' has wide impact (and, in so many ways). Somehow, we muddle through.

10/20/2011 -- It's said that the OWS doesn't have an agenda. That is not bad. However, there ought to be a list of things that NEED attention (and, not just cursory -- or from the 1%'s viewpoint), such as leveraging and speculation. Neither is as necessary as the fat cats argue. Too, there is a whole lot more that could be added to the list, many of these topics have been touched upon here and in the related blogs. Thinking of a Magna Carta equivalent would be a very good exercise.

10/18/2011 -- Hopefully, the OWS will bring this type of thing to public awareness.

10/15/2011 -- The recognition goes global. Banking ought to be handled by those whose greed is close to nil.

10/14/2011 -- One thing that has always concerned the blogger was the trickery that finance did with student loans which ought to be as straightforward as mortgages. Yet, some play games with those needing the support and, in doing so, made oodles (atrocious, in essence). Some of have this in mind as they join in the protest. Yes, it was turned over to bankers of whom there are many types; and, do not bankers exist for the purpose of filling their pockets?

10/13/2011 -- It is our economy.

10/12/2011 -- The CEO MVPs need to look to Paul.

10/10/2011 -- If the OWS wants specifics, there are plenty to list, such as this one. We can only resolve this with an amendment (like the 13th) for the rights of workers (folks, employment is not unlike indentured servitude in many ways) plus a Magna Carta equivalent to give the big pants (egos) something to think about.

10/10/2011 -- Economists, please explain why this is allowable, implying that it is not unconscionable and that it is taken to be ethical.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/it/financial-trading-at-the-speed-of-light

A deeper look will expose multitudes of these types of shenanigans that the less than 1% have spawned (and have been allowed to spawn) in order to perpetuate (almost guarantee - especially with our implicit acceptance of moral hazard'ry) the sucking into their large pockets the very substance of the many (whose members are becoming increasingly hapless).

Of course, the technological basis that enables this type of mischief (yes) is not our friend, either.

Modified: 01/15/2012

Wealth

2011-09-21T06:17:00.000-07:00

In support of a constructive approach, we'll do some posts that deal with basic issues, and more.

Of course, the 'backbone' will be in the mix. Too, juxtaposition of this with the newbies.

---

In other words, fun all around.

Remarks:

Modified: 12/13/2011

Henry and George

2011-08-17T07:47:00.000-07:00

Foreword: George (see below) has been quoted as saying that the world would be better without editors. I can see his point. They change structure thereby stomping on what an author is trying to convey. Yet, their 'lifting' of the message (assuming that this is possible) can improve what was written. And, would we not acknowledge that some of what we see in blogs could use an edit or two? The whole tone in this blog is supposed to be coherent and, hopefully, convergent to some notion that has extreme importance (in my opinion) to our future. From time to time, there may be what seems like a digression, yet such has a purpose. This is a start of one of those.

---

George is for George Edward Kimball, III whom I met 46 years ago (Aug '65) in Lawrence, KS. In brief, George was my roommate for about six months. He and I kicked around Lawrence until I left in spring of 1967 for SF. I did not see George, again, until 2009 when we (my wife and I) caught up with him at lunch in Lawrence.

As I recall, George and I never talked about our past or families. I read some (especially the recap sponsored by the Irish Times) on George a few years ago. I had not known that his father was close by and was an officer (after high school, I had spent two years in the Army) or that he had a pedigree (his existential being was 'beat' or some semblance).

About two years ago, I started to do my wife's family history (my folks are post-Civil War) and discovered that she was Kimball by several threads. So, was it George or Kimball that I knew (to be explained, in time)?

---

After some reflection the past few weeks, I thought that I would try to understand and to express George's impact on my life and on his times. Plenty have acknowledged his influence. Who is even looking at the larger picture?

---

In another forum, I started a series dedicated to GEK III: Salem Commoners and Cambridge non-commoners. Those posts deal with the times and troubles that we all share in general; these posts here will be more of a personal, and philosophical, nature.

---

Why under truth engineering? George, in a sense, was a collection of axioms and rules within my cognitive framework that express the 'truth.' Are we all not such types of aggregations (in our being?), or as some might say, conglomerations? I used 'archetype' in a prior medium (JMS comments). But, we'll get more into that through time and posts.

While George and I were rooming, I had a revelation about why I bounced around colleges. I wrote an op-ed titled Why I am a College dropout which was published in fall 1965 by the KU paper (I'll post this on-line sometime). Harking back to the editor comment of George, when I re-read this paper recently, I was struck by how far off the mark it was due to editorial changes. Too, I thought that I might redo it in order to clarify the message.

So, not only did I write the article, I dropped classes and became a part-time student for several years at various places. You see, the message in the paper is that the educational experience is targeted to 'career' and employment rather than self-realization (what is that?).

---

Of course, a pragmatic sense would take the more direct thrust. But, I ask you, where will people find some place where they can learn of truth, life, and values that are beyond money and mere posturing?

---

So, who is Henry and why is he first? Well, Henry is for Henry Adams who was quite prolific. He may not have been perfect (and has had his critics), however I really liked his EOHA, for several reasons, when I read it as a young man enough to adopt 'EOJ' (Education of John) for my quest as an autodidact.

Henry's life and experiences were very much different than mine in many ways; yet, given the American experience, there were overlaps. And, that will be a major part of the story as I recall George's roles.

---

In a sense, George was the first cohort that I met who was not hung up in the trappings that are thrown down for the younger set in order to pull them into the established 'order' ostensibly for the sake of peace and harmony. How he might have maneuvered himself away from this might bear some attention. But, that will be later.

Until I met George, I hung my ropes on the tranquility offered by the likes of Emerson (R a lph W., of course) and Spinoza (Baruch, of course). That is not, in itself, bad; yet, post-George the world loomed larger. Let me explain some operational details since there was a diversion into existentialism which, thankfully for me, morphed into a hybrid (with influence by Kierkegaard).

---

Of course, I had sat in classrooms. I had done that in several other universities prior to my sojourn at KU. I even knew many remarkable minds, including a cohort who had been 'indoctrinated' (this will be addressed many times -- sufficient to become clear, it is my hope) at the Sorbonne. Too, I had had my exposure to the counterculture and similar.

Yet, George brought something to the table that I had not seen before. What that was (is) will take some time to explain and discuss.

---

For one, George's posturing was more tongue-in-cheek than earnest. At least, that was my take. In other words, George was the real deal.

Consider please, George's writing reflected his humor from what I have seen (even the early Beat work (it is phenomenal that someone inter-generational, like George was, could be so successful in the medium) and perhaps more).

Too, George knew that 'posturing' is the oldest profession (related to establishing the pecking order); yet, he also did not have to step into the ring, so to speak (I don't think that he knew that I had six brothers -- three of whom are Marines).

---

Mind you, it was at the time of the 'dropout' article that I took to serious self-study (all of the connotations). In my opinion, there is no support in our culture for this type of learning. Nor, is it even respected. Probably, the closest thing would be the book club that has actual discussions.

Are there things like a chemistry club? Physics club? Etc. Oh, I know, lab experience is the main issue here. But, have you heard of a Math club? Oh yes. For students. What about the larger population?

---

As an aside, education has been as bounded (hounded) by 'special interest' groups as has politics.

---

It was while George was my roommate that I started to seriously read Psychology/Psychiatry. In particular, I studied almost the sum total of Jung's works. Too, I began a more experimental set of studies whose results are yet to be published.

Universities are great since their libraries can be a gold mine of material. That is, before the WWW, library stacks were the place to find knowledge. Unless, one sat at someone's feet; I never did this; did George?

Prior to George's advent into the scene, my main learning technique was to wander the stacks, pick books at random, open them to a random page and then start to read. Of course, you would then follow up. It is not unlike going to those things referenced in a text book and actually reading the source material.

Who does that in this day and age?

---

George added to my reading list in an interesting way. Would it ever have come about in my random fashion? Of course, this touches upon the role, and necessity or not, of any mentor during one's journey through the various valleys of knowledge.

---

George was quite social; I met a whole bunch of people while he was my roommate. As well, suffered the sleepless night.

My roommate after George was a student working on his dissertation who was up all night reading and typing notes.

There were several juxtapositions, such as this, that associate in my mind when thinking about George.

---

Henry Adams was about 100 years before George's and my time, and Henry lived through a transitional time. We all know about the transitions that we peers of George have gone through. Ought we be taking a closer look?

I probably ought to find someone from the prior transition times (that is, colonial - late 1600s -- and revolutionary -- late 1700s) in order to complete the proper composite. With both George's and my wife's tree, I'm sure that I can do this (by the way, Adams is a cousin, to boot).

---

The point of all this? Look at what the label says.

Remarks:

12/09/2011 -- Nitty gritty truth I.

12/06/2011 -- Alex Belth characterizes George as a 'bad ass' while adding the further qualification of his being so in the Sportswriting world. I would offer an alternative view that would stress positive connotations. George represented a lot that ought to be more prevalent in a sustainable world. He was iconoclastic and liked to tweak the noses of those in authority. However, he was for the little person and supported their interests. How to describe this better? Hmmm. Would it have a sub-title: When men grow up?

12/05/2011 -- What would George have thought of the OWS?

09/21/2011 -- On Wealth and the CEO MVP.

09/10/11 -- The Georges can get mixed up. We have GEK III, of course. But, we ought not to forget George Orwell who tells me that I dropped out from point collecting, not education.

08/17/2011 -- On cousins, it goes this way. There were early families, say early 1600s. Then, starting around 1630, a mass influx happened in New England. Thousands of families, swamping resources. After about 30 years (we can pick the events in England that relate to this), the flow over here slowed to a trickle. Hence, families over here inter-married so as to make an American line, so to speak. There are many people now from New England who have literally 100s of colonial families in their tree. Hence, one can find 'cousins' everywhere, almost.

Modified: 12/13/2011

Economic truths

2011-08-12T12:25:00.001-07:00

We could not continue without eventually getting to beans and books. Everyday, there are innumerable amounts of attention, incalculable exertions, tons of media assets (time and resources), and a bunch of hoopla about the markets. Ca-pital-sino, we can call it.

At its basis, what is the truth? We do not know, folks, for several reasons. Things continue despite starts and stops. Derivatives overlay the reality which is not 'real' in that the things which are being valued and counted do not map well to that abstract world of money.

So, we have arbitrary rules, defined by a bunch of old men, and then interpretation leeways.

---

Sorry state of affairs. Can we do better?

---

Who is trying? Warren, and the whole cadre, want to fill their pockets.

Let me propose this: someone who has taken a vow of simple living, and who has the discipline to not pilfer, could set matters straight. But, we would have to get the fat cats out of the way.

What is the chance of that happening?

---

Well, we can discuss how this might work; at least, that is a start.

Remarks:

10/10/2011 -- New horizon forming? Perhaps, chances of leaning (as in, de-fatting) the fat cats have risen slightly.

09/21/2011 -- On Wealth and the CEO MVP.

09/14/2011 -- One source of problems is, of course, from accounting. Yet, t-issues would make the claim that the technical problems are exploited by humans intent on misdeed. These need to be categorized, to boot.

Modified: 10/10/2011

Memes, and more

2011-08-01T12:07:00.000-07:00

Seeing an article on Memes in the Smithsonian Magazine brought several reactions.

---

At first, a little irony cropped up. Just like this blog dances around t-issues, those who use meme stay on this side of the metaphysical. Ah, when will science allow a more full view? By the way, truth engineering can help attain this.

---

Then, associated with the article was this one on media making us dumber. Of course, they're only talking the social, at this point. But, we could use the TV, too (idiot box, some have said). Perhaps, even radio may have had some denigration thrown at it.

---

Even back in the early days, some may have seen writing as a means to lessen memory (phenomenally, of more stature than any of our artificial beasties). To wit, the old guys knocking those who were chiseling in stone. Bring this forward step by step.

---

So, we see 'Turn on, Log in, Wise up' as a tongue-in-cheek nod to the 60s (and Leary) in the context of the internet's influence on our psyches. Forgetting the zombies who drive (that is, mindless attention to some social media being presented by a supposed 'smart' device all the while riding in a dangerous projectile whose sole control is reliant upon the brain of the one who, in a trance, seems to be absorbed in some 'nothing' that seems to be every dense nowadays), there is still a lot to look at here.

---

We need to get back to being (and Being), having left this topic dangling for a long while. After all, note the use of 'Being' in the label.

Remarks:

12/05/2011 -- We have a new meme. Rather than have/have nots (which is a moral split), we now have 1%-99% (a metrical space); that is, something within which we can maneuver and make decisions (any more meaningful?).

08/11/2011 -- IEEE -- The selfish meme.

08/10/2011 -- For 'head-butt' below, use 'establish pecking order' (all the various ways -- perhaps the meme will guide to that which is less destructive to the innocent).

08/05/2011 -- In case there is a need to be more obvious (the meme: the chicken or the egg -- below), which is the oldest profession: head-butt or mate. Note, if you would, that the latter is usually preceded by the former, in many cases.

08/03/2011 -- There are several ways to ponder economics within an evolutionary framework. However, starting with the two (no, not one) 'oldest' professions might be of interest: head-butting (see Remarks 07/29/2011) and, then, that which is usually cast as the oldest. Which came first (the meme: the chicken or the egg)?

Modified: 12/05/2011

Social era

2011-06-22T08:00:00.001-07:00

The title refers to the theme of the IEEE Spectrum's June, 2011 issue. All of the articles are interesting to a truth engineering framework, however here is a peek at a few.

Super socialize me -- the cover theme. Altogether, there are sixteen articles very much worth a read. The following order has no implied meaning (not even Jungian).
New insults -- looking at some of the behavior that these new media invoke in people, one might think that the Johnson quote might be apropos: It is surely better a man should be abused than forgotten.
The map -- interesting little take on people finding each other via the new media; how many are looking for you? says one ad.
This is your mind online -- Ah yes, the web's contents/presentations do (can) have palpable results. And, what we are on-line may tell a bit about ourselves (only to the extent allow by 'being' (small-t issue). The avatar (whose look, and behavior, will surely change) is one example that bears some more attention.
Under the hood -- basically looks at some technical issues related to the two big players, yet these apply to the whole spectrum. Yes, your on-line being does not exist without a whole lot of support.

Now, to tie into the blog's focus, here are some concepts to be explored further within the context of social media: map-territory, Turing space, t-issues, truth and lemons, ... One subject may be to anticipate how these will look in 10 years and to what extent we may have changed.

... in work

Remarks:

06/22/2011 --

Modified: 06/22/2011

Caveat Emptor

2011-05-25T05:28:00.000-07:00

Beware, essentially. A recent article in the ACM Communications, inadvertently, lays out the motivation behind Truth Engineering. We'll have to take advantage of that. Why?

It ought to become 'be aware' which is what is essential to life (sensors, feedbacks, etc.).

---

The article is under controlled access; see Fedaerated's comment and the editorial review.

The article deals with why 'lemons' can be a problem with markets. Now, why are markets important? Essentially, with the newer age's progress (supposed -- to be discussed), the wisdom of crowds, and markets, are how we know the truth?

---

Is that not silly? To carry it further, the article, by Princeton people, was serious in describing how we cannot know many things. Such as the future. Well, risk handling looks at that. Or, such as, whether your buddy is trustworthy. Here, folks, the military paradigm has the advantage. And, it's related to group dynamics, partly. We ought to run some of the banking, similarly, under a bare bones (truthful) mechanism, thereby removing fat cats, et al.

---

Now, to the matter, we'll get back to lemons. We all hope that we're not dealing with such, but how do we know? Usually, family is a fall-back thing but not always. The military carries that forward, with the band of brothers. We can talk about all sorts of ways that humans have dealt with hypocrisy and deceit.

---

But, then come mathematics, which is the realm, usually, of the egg-heads, and its companion, computation. Early reactions, by the public, was that the computer knows all (hence, one of the attractions of Watson), even though there was the adage of garbage-in, garbage-out. You see, GIGO still assumed that 'logic' was right. See? Yet, we know chips fail, etc.

Ever think that the mathematics, itself, can be suspect? Evidently, Hawkings does not, from what I can see. But, we'll save that for another time.

---

The referenced article laid out a rationale for describing how a buyer could be duped even with transparency and rational decisions. How? Complexity, in certain cases, prevents determining sleight of hand on the part of the seller.

---

Consider, folks, that this could even be unconscious on the part of the seller, though, in most cases, it's just the human trait to try 'to screw' someone.

---

These are computationally hard problems, but intuition can help. That is, the very thing that was thrown out by the egg-head mathematicians is the essential thing needed for truth assessment. Yes, indeed. Somehow, we've all been led to honor, worship, a particular brand of mathematics, probably due to its success in conquering the world. At the same time, has not the mess (oops on oops) grown to be worse?

---

Not proposing easy answers, as these are difficult issues. However, a new type of elitism has emerged with the mathematic/computation-ally expressed worlds (first, second, cyber, ...) that can be chilling to observe and downright ominous in its possible consequences. Some have ranted about this.

Unfortunately, the whole mechanism of out-housing (doing in the doers) is based upon this paradigm that exploits and spits out. Yet, as demonstrated by those who have ascended, there are heights to attain; however, and I say again, however, it will, in the end, turn out to be within the egalitarian scope loved so much by some of the boomers, in their youth.

And, crucial to the theme will be those things for which truth engineering was meant to offer a means for knowing, controlling, and ensuring sustainability across the board.

Remarks:

09/21/2011 -- On Wealth and the CEO MVP.

05/28/2011 -- We'll see 'avatars' galore.

Modified: 09/21/2011

Doers II

2011-05-05T08:22:00.000-07:00

In reviewing some old posts (2008), I ran across this one (Doers and speculators). Sheesh, we think those types that deal with abstractions as being so smart. Like, how many idolize Warren, as if he is some epitome? Then, Big Ben has his following, too.

Now, reading this post made me recall the motivation. Too, I see that it is right on three years later. For some reason, there has been a little digression but not really.

Let's, first, pull together posts related to this theme from the past few years.

Criticism and truth (October 26, 2007) - if one looks at sports, for instance, it's really apparent. How many arm chair quarterbacks are there each monday night throughout the NFL season? In baseball, there are nine on the field for any team at any point in the game. Forgetting the few, coaches and staff and such, that support the team, how many are involved (fans: at the game, watching on tv, etc.)? So, we have only a small collection of doers and a whole lot of watchers. Trouble is, the economy is like that, too. Just as people bet on games, the markets (as currently defined) allow a whole lot of gambling that is really not of much usefulness (crowd sourcing notwithstanding).
Justice and truth (November 10, 2007) - as the workers toil, they diminish to naught. As the watchers gain, fat cats grow unbounded. Part of that is the belief that business has to be ruthless (to wit, article about Warren's recent misstep - see Remarks 04/30/2011).
Free and fee (August 27, 2008) - something for nothing seems to be the underpinning motivation of greed (or more for less, etc.). That this cannot lead to realistic, and sustainable, economics is what we need to look at.
Truth and toil (September 16, 2009) - of course, there is always the 'classism' that is the basis of capitalism (which is one big factor in the emergence of the ca-pital-sino).

What is the point of all this? Well, there are two things. For one, problems with handling abstractions cause more than just the map-territory mishap in which we see the model becoming more real, in the minds of some, than that which is modeled. Pity the poor sucker caught in the jaws of the six-sigma tightening belt.

Secondly, many, who are in the positions of power, never did a lick of 'real' work (as in, dirty hands, of course). Now, we may consider that excelling at some sport may be considered 'work' in this context. A joke that one heard prior to the wedding of last week was that some, within the ranks of the royals, were aghast that Kate had actually worked for a living.

Perhaps, if some of those who are the diapered CEO types had been forced to work their way up (in senses to be discussed), they would not fall so much under the weight of their egos into hubris. The military model works in this case. There are few higher-order officers who have not come up through the ranks (O-series, sufficient, okay?). That is, one does not fall into a position of command via family or appointment (though, some politicos would probably want this).

In terms of exhausting their resources, some top-down thinkers would know more about the reality of what can be accomplished if they had the proper experience. But, no. Management has taken itself to be above differentiation by domain as it operates from universals (or, almost).

The whole out-housing phenomenon is predicated on a never-ending pool of potential exploitees. But, that is a whole another subject to be addressed.

---

Of course, the whole system is awry in this sense and has been for some time. After all, it was several 100s years ago that the first insurance minds cast lots in betting on the success of the doers (people like those who produced goods and those actually moved them from one place to another - in many cases, facing storms on a raging sea). Then, we have funny money which has no basis in reality, at all.

Remarks:

05/25/2011 -- Lemons problem, dark pools, ... Oh, so much to look at!

05/09/2011 -- Milking the system, something from nothing, ... (analogous to perpetual motion).

05/06/2011 -- Good engineers are doers.

05/05/2011 -- New America Foundation: Middle class under siege.

Modified: 05/25/2011

Turing space

2011-04-25T06:16:00.000-07:00

We have known about the Turing test for awhile. There has been progress in passing of this test that seemed far fetched at the time that Turing offered the notion and its context.

We also know that people dumb themselves down in order for systems to work, many times. And, this is mandated by work and bosses so that things, like processes and standard procedures, rule.

Yet, the creative and the free (defined as the monied by some) show that there must be something to human existence that can lift us beyond the angst and existential despair (about work, think Maggie's Farm).

Aside: That the best and brightest think that they are 'it' assumes that there is an army (as in hosts of old) of those who can be trammeled. How else to explain the out-housing mania that left the US without jobs? But, we'll get back to that.

Of course, the motivation for Truth Engineering comes from things related to Turing and more. The emergence of idiocies, via social media and more, seem to be an expanding affair; is there any limit to the dumbness?

The Atlantic's recent story bears some attention which we intend to look at further in this, and related, contexts. Many things need to be discussed: how many think that the map is the territory without a moment's thought?

For now, consider this a note for heads-up caution, if you have not thought about these things and about how they will impact (yes, used advisedly) your life and that of your loved ones.

As well, we can give Turing more of his due, too.

Remarks:

05/28/2011 -- We'll see 'avatars' galore.

Modified: 05/28/2011

Map and territory, again

2011-04-18T18:26:00.000-07:00

That in the title was mentioned before, very early (Territory and map and Territory, map, truth). It was over three years ago, before dire things unfolded along several fronts.

So, we now have a skin issue to look at. From a distance, okay, since there is no close tie. Rather, our mode will be collecting examples to show how we have gone awry, along several fronts.

It seems to me that some type of realizability warp has happened in the minds of the educated. Of course, not all of the learned. I want to specifically address those of the quantitative bent (mathematical and computational) and to discuss the issues with any who want to understand how the best and brightest (not only by their greed) have led so many on perdition-laden paths.

One thing that we can do is try to establish where things went awry, using the timeline of mathematics as it unfolded in the twentieth century. That we saw computational prowess explode in so many ways during the last 20 years, or so, exacerbated the problems.

It was noted earlier that things would have to become more technical in focus in order to understand the problems. Berkeley is not the only motivation.

Remarks:

05/25/2011 -- Lemons problem, dark pools, ... Oh, so much to look at!

04/19/2011 -- It was said that engineering has science behind it. What the hell is behind all of the gaming by the idiots in best-and-brightest clothing? That an insanity goes on daily is not seen (from whence, the blindness?); those in power (with their suits, suntans, ...) act with such grace. Somewhat vacuously, do you not think?

The prime characteristic: mutual admiration society! Almost like the 'royal' courts of old.

Modified: 05/25/2011

Mind over matter?

2011-03-13T10:10:00.001-07:00

Is that not a big-T issue?

The Atlantic, last month, had an article on a recent Turing test. Until of late, this challenge seemed to favor the human. However, computation has really evolved. Note that the article mentions human computers. You see, it was not so long ago that scores of people did the hard work of solving problems that now take less time than a blink of the eye by computer.

Are we thereby smarter?

To boot, the main issues are still avoided, in the debate, due to many reasons We'll get to that, eventually. But, to be shown, mind precedes matter. Yep.

The real kick? The emerging prowess of things cyber (at least, the cloud, but more) will be the basis for the demonstration.

And, truth engineering will be at the core. How? Again, we'll get to that.

Remarks:

03/28/2011 -- See on March madness.

03/24/2011 -- In part, rant: It's obvious that some have talents and some have insights (not mutually exclusive). The former can show us marvels like a golden touch. Is that what we're seeing with Warren Buffett? Or, is it the latter? Or a combination? Whatever it is, my argument is this: lasting business success (or any type of success) does not come about from solely playing luck - that is, the whole gaming-metaphoric jargon that business has descended to (yes, advisedly used) is very much degrading to human dignity (and, no apologies necessary to Las Vegas or other realms of legalized pocket takings). Nor does success come from unconscionable exploitation of others (which, by the way, we see with many types of globalization - the new colonialism). Now, what does that might mean? Well, all of mankind want to pull themselves out of the hole. Guess what? The best-and-brightest (yes, Harvard, to boot, probably in more cases than some would allow us to know) want to preserve their status of walking over others, of using the resources of others (after all, slavery, in many forms, is there, folks -- corporate serfdom, included), of being fed without due effort (yes, as in management, in many case), and a whole lot more. Don't worry, we'll continue to discuss this. Our ancestors did not come over here (the majority, I would venture) to carry forward the whole notion of aristocratic butts to kiss, etc. So, some have remarkable insights and talents. Some less so. Are the latter any less human? Do the former deserve to trample the rights of the latter? Of course, do the latter, by design, need to pilfer from the former? But, where to start in understanding the mess that we're in? Middle out, of course. Some type of national, even international, service is imperative to set the ground for each generation (cohort) to relate peaceably, fruitfully, et al, on this limited planet of ours. And, computation will be an enabling beast (that term used since we see many bad side-effects of the social media, plus a whole cohort of zombies seems to have emerged causing dire straits for themselves and those unlucky enough to be around them, and, like Made-off showed, the supposed wizards of the ether (e-m) can demonstrate an endless means in monkeying with the works (that are ours, collectively)). Does it need to be so? Well, we can try to back off from the gaming viewpoints (except where apropos), even if we do have to deal with uncertainty. We're not saying that we ought not express likelihood and such. Rather, the whole notion of multiple expansions (yes) could help temper those of the type who said a mere three years ago: oh, we have risk in check, never again a downside. Idiots that they were. The suffering continues, despite the chimera.

03/15/2011-- As well, need to bring in Schervish's viewpoint. Paul brings in the 't issues' quite well.

03/13/2011 -- Let's put it this way. Everyone who is successful knows that they have powers behind their good fortune. That is, we can see those who are lucky. But, if that were the only factor, success would not persist. Now, what exactly are those 'powers' that are support gainful efforts. We'll look at those. And, we also have not changed from the position that 'wealth' is NOT the best of measures. That is, some of the successful (too many to name) are plagues upon the earth and it citizens. If we're going to deal with truth, we'll, by necessity, have to look at these issues, to boot.

Modified: 03/29/2011

Bernie has lessons for us

2011-02-28T13:08:00.001-08:00

What are these? Well, there are several that Bernie wants us to know.

To recap, this post (By necessity, Ponzi) is dated 12/15/2008. We even proposed that Made-offbe used rather than the name of that guy from the olden times.

Remember those times, a couple of years ago? Even after the new day, things appeared to be dire. They still are, for most folks, despite the shining chimera.

We'll have to re-look at this since our monetary basis is a 'gab standard' that is weak. How can we make it real? Not an easy subject, folks. The motivation? Look at Minsky's (7oops7, Truth Engineering, FEDaerated) take on the matter.

As further refreshing of memory, here is 'Made-off' in the three blogs.

Bernie exploited our unstable computational ontology, meaning, of course, more than just the platforms, technology, and mathematics. He was able to 'pull the wool' for a very long time. And, he did this on very smart people.

Much to learn there.

Remarks:

04/19/2011 --

Modified: 04/19/2011

4th March

2011-02-26T10:09:00.000-08:00

It's not quite that month yet, when we celebrate St Patty and spring, but it's rapidly approaching. Too, from a content viewpoint, it has been a month for interesting posts.

As before, we'll pick one post per the month per year.

2008 (4 posts) -- this month provided the most read of all posts (Leverage and truth, II). As we know, leverage is applying a tool. Too, though, it has become a type of 'aeration' that is troublesome. In the economic sense, it allows many to think that near zero (next bullet) is other than real; actually, it reinforces happy talk and fairy dusting. But, if this type of thing is couched with the magical aura, and impenetrability, of mathematics, who is to know?
2009 (4 posts) -- the post related to 'Near zero' has been superseded by another (at FEDaerated) yet it did start discussion of this important topic. In short, just as there is no perpetual motion machine, there is no magic formula for wealth, the economy, or any of the myriad situations in life that can be problematic. That statement, of course, by no means ought to be construed to imply any type of nihilism. Rather, our state of underdetermination can be managed, as any insightful adult knows. T-issues are necessary for handling this topic (in time).
2010 (1 post) -- though there is only one post, it deals with an important topic (Can of worms). The initial motivation was the continuing topic, yet the total scope is large and encompasses the whole of applied science, via technology.

Remarks:

02/26/2011 --

Modified: 02/26/2011

Another go

2011-02-08T18:42:00.000-08:00

A topic from a year ago came forward again.

There was a report today concerning a study on the SUA problem that has been going on quietly since early last year. More news will be coming later when the report is technically analyzed.

As posts asked earlier, who knows and believe whom?

Remarks:

02/22/2011 -- One expert site says they wouldn't buy these cars for their kid. Some SUA incidents are collected on this list.

02/09/2011 -- Brief comment. They did look at code. Some slight theoretical chance of error was mentioned, to boot. Yet, as NASA knows, those 'slight' measurements assume a whole lot that is not as rational (think, Gaussian overlays, etc.) as some would expect.

Modified: 02/22/2011

4th January

2011-01-23T11:59:00.000-08:00

Just as we looked at the December entries, across four years, and picked a few to spotlight, we can do that off and on this year. However, since we're still in January, we'll not have one for 2011.

We'll start with 2008 and come forward.

2008 (4 posts) -- Transparency and truth -- Posturing seems to be the political way, yet these folks' doings affect everyone. Too bad that we cannot engineer it more. Trouble is, that would be worse than financial engineering (next bullet) in many cases. What are we to do? Well, no matter the effort, we cannot observe 100% of anything. Even CSPAN is only capturing some small portion of the reality and the beingness behind what is going on in DC. Now, at the same time, we need accounting. Like this, do you know where your feet are? Or, what is on your head? Somehow, finance, and money, issues seem to take on this separate existence. It's funny money, folks (see gab standard, et al). Truth, fiction, and finance -- Did we not see a two-year effort to find culprits boil down to a 6-4 political vote? 'Nuf said. (related material: wikipedia, naked capitalism, NY Times)
2009 (5 posts) -- Hype cycle -- Of course, today there are two games about which we've heard a lot of chatter. We expect fans to rah rah. In anything in life, attitude plays a large part. Yet, if we're to apply a scientific method, can we really prognosticate prior to realization and still be true to the process? Think about that. It's one reason that business cannot (I repeat this for those who are enamored of six sigma, and the like) be run scientifically. However, it can have some large percentage conduct that is science-like. Ever heard of management science, et al?
2010 (1 posts) -- Lordly prince trap -- There are many ways to cut the 'entitlement' pie. Too, hubris can probably be found more in business than in government work, that is, if the political aspect is removed from the latter.

Remarks:

02/26/2011 -- Added links to the months' archives. Another go.

02/08/2011 -- A topic of a year ago: there was a report today concerning a study on the SUA problem that has been going on quietly. More news will be coming later when the report is technically analyzed.

01/27/2011 -- The chimera shines.

01/24/2011 -- Here are a couple of related items.

Turn the clock, and score, back by destroying the evidence.
Chaos engineering is the ultimate Quant dream, in terms of conquering complexity (SOS and application -- we'll look at this closely).

Modified: 02/26/2011

4th December

2011-01-01T14:50:00.001-08:00

We've been at it enough to have four last posts for a year. It might be interesting to look at these with some commentary, starting with the one for 2007.

2007 (5 posts) -- Extrapolation, calibration, truth -- Originally, this attempted to look at an ongoing technical problem. Those who tout operational definition are heading the right way. Too, see the 2010 last post below. Until the issues of undecidability and its consequences are understood, those who game will continue to wreck the lives of the innocent.
2008 (5 posts) -- Last post for 2008 -- This was written before the 'new day' and when much ink was being spilled about the bad guys. Then, for two years, they used our money to make money and to pay themselves bonuses. That is, those who could. A whole bunch of bankers are now facing doomsday (1000s?). We'll see more on this in 2011.
2009 (2 posts) -- Dead peasant -- Still find it hard to believe 1) that bankers are this gross and 2) that the insurance industry has to allow this type of obvious ethical malfeasance. The bank's initial payout was the policy payoff value minus the premium. Now, people, in what universe is this type of thing seen as a good business deal? Oh, by the way, is this how bankers are to make their living? Remember, folks, that we can run all this highly glorious stuff with a few smart people who know about simple living and who understand that entanglement means that everyone needs (actually, deserves) to not be entrapped forever in the debt being accumulated for us by the fat cats' actions.
2010 (2 posts) -- Software issues -- Needless to say, the uses of computing have accelerated far beyond what was seen just a few years ago. Who foresaw that 'apps' would become so embedded within the language? However, the problems remain in their eternal state which, then, implies that we can 'app'ly solutions, albeit they approximate only what would be ideal. That, folks, is our lot: to deal, within our limitations, what is essentially unbounded.

---

Well, the issues remain the same. Recognition of bad thinking increases, though, with time. And, we're some type of higher-order, evolved, creature?

Remarks:

02/26/2011 -- Added links to the months' archives. Another go.

01/27/2011 -- The chimera shines.

01/23/2011 -- Added number of posts by the month for the year. Also, we have a 4th January, to boot.

Modified: 02/26/2011