 In Further Repudiation of the Non 'Effective' Praxis of the Other Man Born In 1828
Theorem. There's plenty of blood in that turnip.
Proof. Assume the other man is correct. To begin delusion in others is an invitation (er, obligation) to ride on the backs of these so deluded people like some Tolstoy man. Question is, are they deluded enough for you to hitch that ride? Restated, can you avoid being crushed misunderstanding the true strength of their still wrong conviction? If the answer is yes, then are you not already riding these people, in business, pleasure, life - all things, eh?
What if the answer is no? Is then the problem a misunderstanding of strength or of truth? If you have to ask, however, must you not also answer to whoever is currently riding on your back? Does that situation delude your thinking? In other words, is this device current or something older still? What then does freedom feel like? It may not be what you think but more a statement of current company. Did you hear a 'welcome to the family'? Was it couched in shrill pipings, terrible poundings, and harsh ranting 'stoicheion phones'? Was that when you sold low? Was that when you bought high?
And it's about time. Today's global dormancy? Long as unit of time is converging to short as same. This claim can be verified with a google query. It's not the metric of win/lose, it's instead devolving semantics regards the English words, long and short. As the former finds the latter, so too the usage of the words long and short is decaying in potency. Is there a notion of long beyond 24 months? How 18 months? It is thus deficit, which informs 'reduction of choice.' I need to shave.
Yet the markets are in fact greater still. History itself describes calamity necessarily but not sufficiently as that which arises when markets are troubled, hurt, or gone (with further nod to and attempt at accounting for cause). And the markets are 'inherently' about people on other people's back, else economics itself finds no purpose. Naysayer = hypocrisy - even secular, a great work of world literature, for example, cannot be replaced in full reduction with a quote from that literature, not without fantastic effort by a cunning mind, which in turn simply leads back again in return to awe again regards the original larger work.
Or, to contempt. Here the American English phrase 'what goes around comes around' has something non-trivial but also perhaps unsatisfying to convey. And the markets are even worse in this regard. The analysis (the crunch) finds after betting at least the now more temporally perceived (and located) in the current all over again. And so forward on where forward is as market measured. Yet time is market measured by breath. So here comes History again talking calamity.
It might have said,
'I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means -- except by getting off his back.'
But all know Tolstoy said this first.
q.e.d.
 Commenté il y a 4725 jours |
