Monday, December 28, 2015

Good Nazi

In the WSJ, book reviews, Sat, 12/26/2015, Adam Tooze reviews Martin Kitchen's Speer: Hitler's Architect (see "The Myth of the Good Nazi").

This image comes from that review.

Comment about Hitler's best and brightest,
namely, their processes and foci
To quote: they "lived and died by the standard of performance" and considered little "ethical examination of the methods" being used. Now, of course, Speer was tried and made an effort to show his activities in a good light.

Too, progress comes from focused effort. Yet, that bit of text struck me as being very applicable to STEM's shortcomings which I call everyone having their heads in STEM sand.

No, this is not a view from loosey-goosey space. Take all of the hype about AI taking over. Of course, it's the best-and-brightests who are pushing the state of the art. Some observers are saying, wit a minute, perhaps. Yet, that is only one of many technological moments which on a close look are very much deleterious to those involved, especially the workers. The buyers only their souls to worry about.

Question: Does STEM-ness obviate ethical issues? Why the STEM thrust as if we have no other ways to look at truth?

Remarks:  Modified: 12/28/2015

12/28/2015 --

Thursday, December 17, 2015

AI and commonality

Of late, there were a lot of bucks put into coordinating AI.

Let's hope that Asimov's little robot rules are remembered and extended out as they ought to be. Say what?

Yes, human intelligence trumps the artificial. Again, say what?

Well, the team will be incomplete without someone talking to them from a real position. I understand that they are SV heavy hitters. Are not those who have been entrapping us all?

So, we'll be weighing in more here. Still doing Quora (going on 5 months).

Remarks:  Modified: 12/17/2015

12/17/2015 --

Sunday, October 25, 2015

About Albert

In September of this year, the Scientific American had a special issue on Relativity which, then, featured Albert. As one article noted, Relativity is going strong after 100 years.

Some of the other articles were: How Einstein discovered General Relativity, What Einstein really though about Quantum Mechanics, and more. One in particular is related to the theme of this blog: Does Einstein's Theory of Gravity Hold Near Black Holes?

Note: All of article pointers are to previews, however the comments are visible. Also, there are some links to additional material.


Albert's work is one example of the support that mathematics gives to science (physics, et al) and our views of the universe. As such, it is a place where quasi-empirical issues can be brought forth and discussed. There will be more of a focus toward that.

For now, there is a tie-in with the earlier post on psychether. Waiting in the wings is a better appreciation of human talent and what it means in this type of work.When we see a breakthrough there, some of the current controversy will abate. But, then, a whole new bunch will ensue.

Remarks:  Modified: 10/25/2015

10/25/2015 --

Friday, October 23, 2015

Quora, again

As of today, I have been three months on Quora. So, it's time to stop and review. The analysis will compare the Quora experience to FB (the metaphor).

Quora stats, two months

Quora stats, three months
These two have different approaches. Facebook is for the visual crowd. Quora is supposedly more intellectual, being oriented toward question and answers. However, one can embed image and video. As well, Quora allows one to build blogs and to post to these.

As one would expect, some questions and many answers leave a lot to be desired. There is a be nice policy for answers. But, some questions seem to be confessional. Or, they are out-and-out trolls, even if anonymous. As the anon types are still known to Quora.

Remarks:  Modified: 02/29/2016

02/29/2016 -- Eight months now. Lots learned. And, things recalled. For instance, a nice discussion on Carl Gustav Jung's concept of Synchronicity is apropos. There are other examples.

Monday, September 14, 2015

Hacking Quora

There is this thought that hacking is cool. So, a question appeared on Quora: Can-Adrian-Lamo-hack-Quora? Adrian, himself, answered the question. So did I, on August 29. This morning, I got a note that the answer was locked as Quora Moderation flagged it as not appropriate. Oh well. So, it is reposted here (and deleted it on Quora).
    Ah, a voice of reason? One comment (by Jeremy [note 9/14/15 - this answer is missing]) on Adrian's answer asked why the "cool" response by those who think hacking is of use. But, then, the one retort (Amy [note 9/14/15 - this answer is missing]) said that it is the way to know how something works.

    It is worse than sad. A whole generation without ethics? Many of these are U.S. kids for whom we have people putting themselves and their lives on the line minute by minute so that the kids can, essentially, break the law. Give me a break, even if there are not specifics, yet, stated by law, all of this interest very much is unethical and immoral (of a small "i" so as to quiet the harpers).


    One could look at it like this. If I know that my neighbor's house is unlocked, ought I go in and make myself comfortable, eat the food, steal, and what have you? Now, at one point, I would have expected most to say no, you do not have the right, and it's illegal. But, now, these kids are saying yes (make yourself at home). This type of thinking is just that.

    Okay, suppose I only go in to "see how his house works" (see the idiocy, yet - the above retort)? Is that okay? Well, not, it's still venturing on the highly unethical. Oh, I know, people seem to have accepted pilfering.

    But, to know how it works? We can determine things like that with thought processes. This whole thing is reductionism gone wild. Gosh, thanks logical positivism? But, perhaps, the focus on code (and who can piss further) is the main symptom of the underlying problem which no one seems to be looking at. Ah, so much work to do.


    Now, we can see with the Internet, that it was let out very loosely and without proper forethought. To me, Adrian would do much better if he helped with discussions of just what went bad and where did it go bad along this whole trek of stumbling.

    I think that we let the genie out of the bottle, as I sit back and marvel at the idiocy that is driving people daily.

    But, not me. I'm not mobile for one thing (had an idiot box for about a week - enough - I'll try again when I have a clear experiment defined). I have never bought from Amazon or any of the big sellers. I do not look at ads (quite a feat to keep the concentration from that dense bit of nothingness). I distinctly remember the chagrin and pit-of-the-stomach feeling when the marketers started their incursion. There are several things that I do daily to keep myself free from the bonds of the internet-way (are birds free?).

    Now, there are arses who argue that the web is a commercial, marketing space. Say what? The original motivation was communication and then the collegial interchanges related to real thinking and work. Anymore, I am not sure how things ought to go. That they stink to high heaven is the message that needs to be brought to attention.


    The best thing for me would be to skip around all of the knee-jerk reactions to what is supposedly "cool" and worthy of adulation. I'm a newbie on Quora and will have to filter better.

    But, Adrian being asked a question like this is the first thing that ought to raise a flag. The question is anonymous which makes it even more mischievous.

    Why, questioner, why would someone respond that they could pull a bit of highway robbery (that is a type of pissing contest you expect from young, immature males) without getting caught? You see, getting caught is the problem? Not the actual ignominious deed?


    Finally, hackers, et al, ought to be aware that some people want to do real stuff via the web and are prevented from doing so by all of the partying that goes on. What all of those partying persons ought to know is that their little bit of glee is supported by all types who patiently put up with their childish antics: those who feed them, those who house them, those who clean up after them, those who bail them out, and those who care for them as they need detox (et al) and medical assistance, and so forth.

    Where are the real contributions from this crowd?
Like I said, it is sad that we have kids wanting to follow in this type of footstep. 

Remarks:  Modified: 09/14/2015

09/14/2015 -- 

Monday, September 7, 2015

Multisense Realism

Forward: This is a brief summarization of activity on Quora.

Early on in Quora (after about two weeks as a writer), I answered a question (Aug 8, 2015), in which I used psychether. At the time, I had been using the term for years. So, the following sets the usual tone.
Notice that I mention Einstein's work as that has been a motivation all along. Of course, the phenomenon of psychether involves a lot more than human interaction.

One of the things I started to do on Quora was sync with my blog posts. As I was doing this work, I did a search on the term and found that there had been other uses. A musical group used this as a title for a CD plus there was at least one userid of this name. So, I did this post, psychether, on Aug 11, 2015. The post shows an image from mid-1990s entry in a database that used the term in relation to my research. This is to establish the precedence though the term itself does not do more than suggest something about the operational aspects.

--- On MR ---

Later on Quora, I ran across the concept of Multisense Realism (MR) while browsing questions. The concept and thoughts struck a chord. Because of theme resonated with psychetheral issues, I answered the question. The question was formulated in the fall of 2012; my answer was last Friday, Sep 4, 2015).


Now, taking this further, there is a website plus a Facebook page for MR.

Finally, having run across this work, I began to pull together my thoughts. One thing that the MR questioner noted was that people could find usefulness for and apply his concept without going all the way to spirituality or metaphysics (my interpretation).  

--- Space-time++ ---

So, I will now do a brief look at my recent musings in this regard. Of course, a lot of my work bordered on metaphysics. However, I spent my career working in geometry, meaning that I touched all the time the mathematics related to differential geometry. In the back of my mind, I was ruminating on early work which goes back decades and how all of this relates.

My original thrust had several motivations which I will get to eventually. Given that I was working alone, except for occasional discussion with some peers (to be named), the sole criterion was my own understanding. But, science has to be public to be. And, public is more than the fact of a special interest group.

Of late, it had occurred to me to take another step. I had already addressed some of this thought in either/or terms. There are several posts along this line, but they come from a claim that harmonizes Anselm and Pascal (Blaise, if you would) with the modern views. In my mind, I might add. You see, some supposed smart folks are being idiotic. One side calls the other blind while the blind call their accusers delusional.

Too, people are running after larger and larger experiments. Sheesh. Let's just use the whole planet as a laboratory. Wait, has that not already happened?

So, of late, I have been thinking that all we need is one little addition that would answer all sorts of questions. Too, we could have some type of reasonable response that is obvious (hence, scientific). But, what is that?

We'll get there, but let's use a reminder from the early days of computer evolution. We had a stage where we had 2 1/2 dimensions as we were not quite ready to handle 3D? Actually, in the 2G to 3G wars in telecom, we had something similar.

So, we'll talk ST++, as in space-time plus-plus. What is this? There are rules about how one goes about this type of thing. But, I'm going to appeal to von Neumann when he said that we don't have to understand mathematics, we just get used to it. As in, if it works, why have to explain? But, human nature wants to tear things apart.

MR brought in a more wholistic approach. There have been others. Lots. So, I will look further at this. Too, though, I will be going back to work beyond harping at people. I have been blogging about truth engineering since 2007. I first wrote up the discipline in 2000 and have slowly been working things (alone).

During this time, I have calmed myself with Faraday's work. That is, he was an early experimenter who helped get theoretics settled. Michael was about 40 years older than James Clerk Maxwell, for example. Why does the analogy having a tie in with electromagnetics? Look at MR's approach.

Too, this work is being done in a autodidact mode.


So, I have become convinced that an operational approach is now suitable to bring forth. There are many analogs from computing: closures, extensions, etc.

I had hoped that the internet would be amenable to gathering the data. And, that may be a more viable thought now than before, except there is so much noise now. Fortunately, a lot of my work dealt with reducing this type of interference.

My next step will be to look at MR further; too, I want to document all of the different views that I have run across over the years. At the same time, I will work on firming up my hypotheses (several) sufficiently that they could be discussed.

Remarks:   Modified: 09/07/2015

09/07/2015 --

Friday, September 4, 2015


For now, a collection of links:

Remarks:   Modified: 09/10/2015

09/10/2015 --

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Wayback machine

I was looking for an old web page, yesterday, and thinking of the changes that we have seen. You know what, not all of them have been good. Early on, we had mostly hand-crafted pages. Some of these may have used a fancy editor but not all of them. I am still using a rudimentary HTML editor, myself.

Of course, all of the slick methods have run rampant. This summer I have run across several bots that have been problematic. In fact, one of these encounters was today. Too, there is more of an emphasis on databases that is warranted.

So, we have fluidity, everywhere, with little structure. Unfortunately, this is bosh as we find structure in nature; the whole thing of relativistic-ally attuned mayhem in presentation is troublesome, to say the least.

Be that as it may, we will see how things are five and ten years from now. I will suggest that structure will get some respect (papers on advanced subjects are skirting around this subject).


One of my interests is "intelligence" which is an important subject for several reasons. One reason is that we ought to know what it is, or might be, if we're going to argue for an artificial type. Too, testing, thereof, is currently a partitioning scheme that can be unsettling; the ramifications from misuse impacts everyone  (see testing example, AGCT on Wikipedia). Of course, there will be more on that.

Wayback look on the left
Newer format on the right
Now, one type of test is the academic filtering type. I ran across this page while looking for ACT to SAT mappings. This page is done by a tutor (coach); of course, one goal of this role is to improve scores. I really liked this history, though which comes up to 2013, even though the format is old.

I went to the home page of the site and found this comparison of the page found in Wayback. It tickled me, for several reasons. One can imagine all of the possible formats that could be done with the newest, latest iterations of the editors and page creators.

Remarks:   Modified: 08/12/2015

08/12/2015 --

Tuesday, August 11, 2015


The following is a question, and my answer to start the discussion. It was posted on a forum which came back with this: "The question Why has no one asked about (or even mentioned) quasi-empiricism? was marked as possibly insincere. 45m ago"

This was similar to what I got with another question. In this case, it was published but marked. The former question was bounced. Again, I took it off, albeit the question did sit there a few days.

The use of quasi-empirical, in this blog, has been there from the beginning (2007). I knew that there would be an uphill trek; yet, does not anyone even think of these things?

-------- Question ---------

Why has no one asked about (or even mentioned) quasi-empiricism?"

Starting with Eugene Wigner. ... Would this @question's subject be amenable to the Answer Wiki method here? ...


Not long after posting, there was this response.
    CJ -- 1 vote by John M. Switlik
    I think you'll need to expand before you can expect answers.  Not having a context topic, asking an ambiguous question, then requiring people to read through two dense links before answering may not be the path to mutually edifying discussion, and definitely won't get you any answers from people with math professors or philosophy professors (I'm still not sure which you'd rather hear from.)
At that point, I added this Introduction.
    We all have marveled at the results of the growing prowess evident from scientific and engineering efforts. At the same time, some (many?) can identify, and discuss, the downside of the prowess. And, as time goes along, effects keep rolling on from the prowess, seemingly without end and definitely without control (hubris, itself, rages). What gives? 
    Too, the STEM thrust has come about as a direct consequence of people trying to capture what they understand from observing the better practitioners at work into a set of practices and skills. Along with that thrust, we see a strong notion that all knowledge can be encapsulated in computational modes which are inherently supported by mathematics. Those modes can be thought of as being very broad, leading to worries by some (of late - name the technical celebrity), to wit: singularities, dystopian situations, and more. 
    Many have sought to understand the capabilities that underlie progress. In 1960, Eugene Wigner published his reflective article: The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. Letting Wigner's article speak for itself: The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning.
    In 1980, Richard Hamming provided some thoughts on Wigner's theme. He pointed to humans being primed by evolution as a factor. Others have commented, as well. Of late, Max Tegmark argues thus: Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. 
    Much like attitudes about Pascal's later thinking which led to his Wager, many ignore Wigner's ruminations. However, given the rapidity of technology's advancement and the growing awareness of the pitfalls thereof, one might expect that the quasi-empirical discussions would be of extreme interest. One inhibitor could be that these issues have not been addressed in a universally available medium. 
---- My (seeding) answer to start the discussion -----
    John M. Switlik, Timeless autodidact

      Why? Why? 

      Does that sound like a 2/3-year old? Mature, successful adults learn to suppress a lot of their inquisitiveness. Too, pressures keep people in line when they may want to relapse (up to, even, peer-reviewed journals) as if inquisitiveness were bad in itself.

      Success, for the most part, comes to those who apply the current state of knowledge in a useful (to some one or ones (why else the remuneration?) manner. But, at every point, some have to be thinking forwardly, and tinkering (which, again, for the most part, is the effective means), in order to advance what is the current situation (status quo, in other words). For the most part, advances come via perturbations, hopefully controlled, to the established basis. 

      But, sometimes, we get jolts that are disruptive (though, the effects might be a long-time coming to many folks - there are others who being at the center of the change feel the impact very soon - comparatively). 

      At any of the shared points of experience, do we know how things are going to pan out? Well, it's like they say with the markets, past performance does not guarantee future returns (paraphrase). Yet, this applies to science, to boot, which is supposed to be provisional, etc. 

      One might ask, how does this strong belief (all ways to characterize, so punting, for now) come about? In fact, many feel certain-ness, in their situations, though uncertainty is the reality (again, punting). 


      That little bit leads us to the following list which will be part of the discussion. We have to ask how people know if they are heads-in-the-sand types. "know" implies a whole lot about effective action based upon knowledge and rationality (again, a punt).  

      Aside: Everyone is like an ostrich when dealing with things outside of their expertise - yes, of course, ... -> chemists --> physicists --> mathematicians --> (?) -- I will not give them the credit of talking to God (not in mathematics, anyway). One might say, from this we see the imperative nature and emergence of the autodidact (again, not a know-it-all).

      Let's end by listing a few ways to know. 

      By authority (impression) - That is, someone (or something) provides the means to making choices, including, many times, forcing behavior (ah, so many youngsters drugged to get them in line). In this bucket, throw loved ones, heroes, stars (as in, the faces on the screen - what I call, talking heads). Enumeration is required ().

      By rationality (reason) - Some make this claim. We can let them talk for themselves. In many cases, they are using the advances associated with the original question (by Wigner, who was pondering the glee being raised by some - oh yes, we can now pollute in ways that are unfathomable to grasp). Based upon what? Oh, Russell said that, Frege said this, whoever said that, ... Circularity (well, tautology, okay?). ... We have to ask, how the heck can this conglomeration of wetware, ourselves (even Spock), rise above the swamp creatures that we are (lizard brains, one Quora guy, says here). Again, let us count the ways ().

      Knowing-ness (differs from the first and second bullets, in this sense - let's say, autodidact - independent and wise - knows the gamut). This implies the ability of which we see the effect of without knowing how to affect that state (so desired by many - but which is right outside the grasping fingers?). Too, note that there are all sorts of knowing types that we have to address (the more sensitive thinkers have, at least, opened their eyes a little).

      This list can be extended in the Wiki piece (via Answers, remember the rules). In fact, a look at the categorizations that have come about is about due, except we're not writing a book here. Outlining one, perhaps. 
Remarks:   Modified: 08/11/2015

08/11/2015 -- First posted on 8/7; Quasi-empiricism has been a constant theme in this blog. So, there is no insincerity.


This post claims this concept. It's use precedes the Internet. There have been many usages of it over the past 20 years. Example (this is a capture of a controversial forum at anglefire - there are oodles more).

Search on psychether now, and you will not find my usage (all sorts of reasons). So, the claim is precedence, only. Plus, I intend here (and at another site) to lay out the motivations, usages, and ramifications for this concept.

Briefly, the psyche part is well known but little understood despite all sorts of efforts to explain the thing. Well, we do not have to understand (just as John v N said of mathematics), we get used to it. Well, the mind is known to all cogitating humans. That is a large group. There are ways for us, now, to experiment such as to observe and document effects. Is this bordering on metaphysics. No, see next? Anytime someone does broach that, it's their right. Okay? But, it is not necessary.

Now, Ether is the key. I have all sorts of things to discuss here and will get to it. But, a good analog to consider is that which mind (psyche, and more) can influence (warp) similar to what we see matter do with space-time. Some claim that it's related to energy (that's not wrong; it's incomplete). ... The solution is to have an operational framework. Now, whether someone accepts the work or not is immaterial if there are results that can be observed (no trickery).


What took so long? I have been at this since the '60s, working alone, essentially. But, I have been fortunate enough to have been involved with advanced computing dealing with real problems of a very complicated nature. Too, I have known, and worked with, amazing individuals (who are not on anyone's radar - talking heads jabber, confound, entertain, ...). That whole stream of experiences honed the basis. I have been retired for 10 years now, again working alone which is what the autodidact does. Too, this past decade has run the gamut (lessons to learn on all sides). But, the web both evolved and devolved within that time frame. And, so, guess what is one row that needs to be hoed (sorry, I'm an old guy)? Truth engineering.


Cosmology and relativistic physics and quantum views? Yes, they will all come into play. Thought experiments can go a long way. But, at some point, results are necessary. That is the current stage; bringing privately measured results (not all) out to public review which is the bailiwick of science.

Remarks: Modified 09/07/2015

08/11/2015 -- 08/11/2015 -- On a quick review of digital files, first reference (talking dynamics) was in the late 80s, early 90s time frame, Manual notes are older (will get to this at some point). The fact of precedence can be supported (will look at way back).

Found this older site (Scholars) with mid-1990s entry  into a database (retrieved 2006):

08/13/2015 -- For those on Quora, go to my blog and look up G. Metanomski with whom I had discussed his work in physics related to AE and Infeld. This post was only to set the originality and temporal aspects in order (on the ever-changing web/cloud/...).

08/14/2015 -- Another view, similar theme.  Good reviews in Quora.

09/07/2015 -- Psychether considered in the context of Multisense Realism.

Friday, August 7, 2015

Know one, know them all

The following is a question, and my answer to start the discussion. It was posted on a forum (guess where?) which bounced it back, twice, for reasons that bear some discussion. ... Rather than run down that path, it is being posted here.

The thing is that someone that is fluent in one computer language can pick up another. Where the difficulty comes in is with nuances (arguable points), add-ons (the whole bit of frameworks, etc., tuned for the language), with libraries (say, specific implementation of functions, lots to discuss there), and more.

In brief, the 80-20 (or any other ratio) rule comes into play. In regard to the "cloud" and things of this nature, are we not under siege by those who want to create havoc? Ah, the decisions that were made are haunting us.

-------- Question ---------

Who has applied "know one, know them all?"
    Of late, we see all sorts of emphasis on specifics in job requests, many of these related to details. Now, some of that is HR trying to make it easy on themselves. Some of it is just glorifying code and the wizards, thereof.

    My motto, from decades of experience: Know one, know them all.

    Let me tell you a story. I took an old engineer, gave him a little tutorial, and he did this (believe it or not): converted a lisp-based system (okay, a small portion of it, but non-trivial) to Pascal. Now, here's the key: he did it essentially by writing the new code without an IDE (that is for folks who are hung up on their tool - which, think of it, is a link to the ring on your nose pulled by the vendor)  by hand. I typed it in, and things worked.

    I can hear the whole chorus going off on me. Let me rephrase. The complexity in systems is what is represented in code, not the code itself. And, some things (domains) get complicated real quickly. However, we have had fifty some-odd years to try to make it better. Anyone even care?

    Well-specified frameworks (et al, as this implies a whole lot of stuff) and other practices hide complexity. Wait! Every generation (and I've seen plenty, folks) has to re-write from the get-go. Therein, we see some of the problem.

    If the focus was on specification (let's say, executable), then one could map to the delivery system. And, done right, the approach could be as exciting to use as getting into advanced games. In fact, rather than chasing about in a fictional situation, going nowhere, the whole of the space(s) could represent aspects of problems, etc.

    That type of thing would work for the IDE experience, to boot.

    Before I leave, sure, getting people to understand OO (and other advanced notions) can take time. But, again, we took engineers and taught them this; they then did their own coding and, as needed, used help from people who could debug, etc.

    Motto: It is more effective, at times (when?), to teach a domain person to code in order to solve their problems, then it is to try to teach a coder (yes, guys/gals) the intricacies of a domain.

    Ah, next up, would be discussing domain-oriented tools.
---- My (seeding) answer to start the discussion -----
    John M. Switlik, Timeless autodidact

    There are several problems that come to fore in the described approach.

    For one, the IT/CS types might start to feel like servants; yes, the brain work is being done by the domain expert (some used to use, subject matter expert). In this case, let IT/CS dabble in the domain (there is no worse hell than a lifetime working with things from that below-the-floor view).

    Too, those who are the experts might get bogged down by the drudgery of the coding/testing/etc. Put effort into building domain assists (actually, that would be one thing that could give the IT/CS people their jollies).

    So, meet in the middle which is how real-world problems are solved by effective teams. Say what? Yes, for one example, think top-down meeting bottom-up. But, the axis does not have to be oriented that way.

    I used TD to BU (think of the middle as a floor with an upper and lower bifurcation - all of this movable, as a feast) as I can tell all sorts of tales in this regard (as could anyone working on advanced systems (inclusive use) that solve/resolve things that other than what we see being offered to the public). One solution is having teams that cover the perspectives through the various talents actually working together (as opposed to what? all sorts of examples, but let's say, in this context, people stupidly glaring at a screen in order to see (what?) code - all day, no wonder there is such an interest in zombies) and resolving conflict, etc. BTW, agile does not cut it in this regard unless there is a step away from the code as the focus in order to allow some type of persistence of the specs (tests as specs, in the aggregate - don't think so, incomplete, for one thing - in regard to knowledge which is the realm of the human expert - notwithstanding the hoopla about big-daddy data).

    You see, for some reason, the computer has taken precedence. When the heck did that happen, folks? I'll tell you. When what became the cloud (ah, to me, insidious stuff) took people's touchiness away. When you deal with the whole of it (which truth engineering says is necessary), then you have better intuitive grasps (the cloud, people, takes away your control - ah, managers/bosses/money people - did you do this little shenanigan on purpose? well, that would require better insight than is actually there).

    To teams, the key thing is trying to get some balance in a multi-dimensional space, of which some of the factors relate to convergence (not to be thought of as a simple fixed-point issue - for now, think metaphorically) toward something that is unknown (and hard to know). Enough on that, as it can be expanded elsewhere.
Remarks:   Modified: 10/17/2015

08/11/2015 -- This was originally posted on 8/07; there are rules for questions that I'll post, if they are public. This one could be broken into parts. But, we have the total thing here, for whatever review might be done.

10/17/2015 -- This was the end of the honeymoon (to be explained). A later occurrence of the same thing: Quasi- empiricism.

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Quora com

I am interposing a post between the "Many truths" and the followup. Why? To get back in touch with the world of computing as seen by the younger set and everyone else.

You see, I have mentioned Codecademy, Khan Academy, and others. Yet, none of these pulled me in. Recently, I looked more closely at Quora. I had run across it earlier and liked some of the answers of which many were in a good tone.

In other words, the questions and answers, many times, depicted some bit of awareness and intelligence. You see, I had been working Wikipedia, but there are the constraints (neutral point of view, no original work, etc.). Quora has none of that though there are some rules.

In particular, topics in Quora bear directly to what I am (have been) doing here. In fact, my monologue (ongoing, tedious) can now be beefed up. I'll start by looking at two questions, by category.


Coding - All sorts of questions deal with this subject. For one of them, many answers to what master programmers need to know (best-kept secrets of the great), were too low level. They were from a CS viewpoint, as in from the lowest view that one could take (thinking that CS rests upon computer and electrical engineering, okay?). But, domain, and higher-order, thinking does not slough along in lower-level code. No, we need domain tools, etc. And, those who might want to strut around because they can code might also want to consider that problem solving consists of more than what might be computed. Best answer (to be discussed).

Truth - The breadth of the questions is astounding. And, the answers, again, many times are wonderful within a wide range. Best answer (to be discussed) to "What is truth?"


There are many other questions of note. We will get to those, say intelligence, mathematics, science, and such.

What took the old man so long? I had to follow my own autodidact quest even if it was within my own infinite space as from there I could observe.

As an aside: a dream from 30 years ago is apropos to the theme (running across Quora resolved the quandary).

Remarks:   Modified: 08/04/2015

08/01/2015 -- My Quora Profile.

08/03/2015 -- George as inspiration of computing and existentialism.

08/04/2015 -- Georges M. Autodidact Extraordinaire. [From this am: Had started to add Georges Metanomski as an encourager. Left a post in an incomplete state (reminders: on links, put spaces to keep from activating - as a human could close it if they wanted; too, figure some minimum amount of words to leave - as in, go from the digital world of wannabes, to the real world of being, ...). Quora deleted this which was pointed to from FB; and, sent a warning about spam (stupid bot as a human would see that I loathe the commercialization - there, I said it - of the web/cloud). ... Either, they'll return things to normal, or I'll work another method after recapping my 1 week experience.]

Sunday, July 19, 2015

Many truths

One motivation for this post was seeing this headline for an article (WSJ): 'Smart Cities' Will Know Everything About You. The other motivation has to do with talents that get ignored in the modern age which we must discuss and keep in focus.

First, I must mention my reaction to the article. After seeing the headline, I thought, oh no, we have not even, properly, handled issues that relate to "undecidability" (note, please, usage beyond that associated with Turing). Then, the next thought was that this type of thinking is what is behind the growing, insidiously so, cloud that is falling as a mesh on our future and freedoms (and that of our progeny).

Finally, while reading the article, I saw that the ugly crowd called "marketers" kept coming up; yes, those who buy data in order to manipulate people (in finance, this means the gaming of the ca-pital-sino). The article does touch upon the issues, such as privacy, lack of control, and such.

In the end, the writer says that things would not be Orwellian "if businesses act responsibly" (pigs fly?).


We have grown dependent upon the engineering/technology viewpoint as it has been known to get things done; progress requires this type of applied science. But, how many modern advances have had deleterious results far beyond any benefit that might have ensued (ah, consider why we need to worry about the enmeshing)? As well, we do have people who sell. In fact, some feel that the economy is mostly made up by consumer activity. Too, some of the Beats (below) pushed financial schemes. Too, we have the artists who support marketing and public relations (respectable, of course - if they behave - who defines the rules?). Then, we have the big pockets (I have left out several classes - say, labor, and many more) who pull things together (some like to coin themselves as capitalists, though they are really oligarchs).


Now, let’s get to the other motivation. My cognitive framework is so wrapped around truth engineering's particulars for several reasons. As such, a balanced view is important (we will establish this part of the requirement); balance looks at all sides, even the counterculture (below). And, while reading things like the-above article, the "Beats" come to mind due to the specific time frame of that phenomenon (though, the early American experience had nonconformists, too; actually, the main intent of the emigres was to remove themselves from something to which they could not conform). So, we can use the Beats as the point of origin; post the Beats, we had the Free Speech activities, Civil Rights workings, Hippies lolling about, ..., and, of late, the conglomeration named Occupy Wall Street. In other words, that which has a strong element of iconoclastic-ness and nonconformity has been a continual presence in a not-small part of the population for 60+ years.

Activism, as well, comes to mind; in that case, there are as many variations as there are truths that we need to engineer. Unfortunately, “activism” includes things like hedge funds trying to force businesses to make decisions that maximize the return for their (the hedge fund’s) investors (so much to say there).


One thing that needs immediate attention: truth and what it is. People get puzzled about truth, especially about the need for "truth" engineering. I asked a scientist to define truth, without mentioning whether I meant the big or little one (as in "T" or "t"). He, to my surprise, went to the big side without blinking an eye.

You see, science is not (supposed to be) of that ilk (except, is it that Truth and Science are equivalent? - pun). Science deals with a whole lot of little "t's" (though the cosmologists like to browbeat everyone into accepting their "itty bitty" views about the largeness of Creation (intentional big "C" which is at this point unqualified; people have grappled with these things for eons - the new factor deals with computers, networks, and insidious stuff like the cloud - so, we're starting from scratch here - or, taking a constructive approach, if you would) as that worldview of science is supposed to be provisional (very hard for humans to do). Yet, engineers have to firm things up in order to work, so right there is a quandary (engineering as applied science – which tends toward Scientism in too many cases).


Recently, I got reminded of an old friend, namely Charles Sander Peirce. You see, his work (as well as that of many others) gives us part of our prowess in abductive approaches. We'll get back to that, for sure.


But, to continue on about truth: how many truths are there? Some claim that there are as many as there are people. But, one can bring in situational truths, to boot. Let's just say this, even the big "T" side of things is multiple. Why? For one thing, we have issues of interpretation (which, for the most part, come from free will – yes, how about the neuropeptidergic bag?).


And, as we know, a lot of truth has to do with power (all sorts, even that of politicos). That is, overbearing-ness is a common human trait (oh Lord, deliver us). But, of that power ilk, those who score highly on tests  (yes, the so-called best-and-brightest) are of the worst variety (see below).

That is, so what that they can solve problems with a laser-like focus and do so quickly? Consider: is the sum total of all of the possible laser foci reality (yes, that is not a misstatement - look at topology, please)? Well, some seem to think so. Too, are the sum total of all people's views reality?

Aside1: Humans, please, get over yourselves (and your selfies) - that which is called "Pluto" was there long before we became aware of such. The world was here long before your entrance glorified the realm of existence.

Aside2: Yet, were we not made in the Image (purposefully left dangling)?


Since people are so involved in truth, and what it is, we can look at categories. For starters, we can take two. On the one side are those who excel at STEM. Now, mind you, some of these are the best-and-brightest. But, no, not all of the b-and-b are good at mathematics. STEMers, for a large part, might do well since they can focus and filter without expending much energy. Others might be more like the turtle (however, in some cases, slow and thorough beats quick and dirty). For instance, some types of dyslexia make it hard to handle things like numbers. There are other examples. Engineers, by design of the discipline, do STEM.

Now, what is the other side? Before we look at that, please be aware that some who are of this ilk can do STEM, too (The blogger – he will quote Von Neumann who said that we do not understand mathematics, we get used to it.  True, operationally. But, mathematics is more discovered than created). So, what is it about this non-STEM side that is of essence? Intuition, for the most part (that which is behind creativity and other great talents).

There is much to discuss, here. But, poets, painters, and others demonstrate the facility. In this case, we will use the Beats as the example of a type of truth processing. The reasons for this choice will be apparent when the discussion continues with a later post.

Remarks:   Modified: 07/27/2015

07/19/2015 -- This post was done using a professional editor implying that a new process will be put into place.

07/27/2015 -- Another poster boy popped up the other day.

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Khan Academy

Earlier, I touted Codecademy (here and there). There are plenty of places where one can go and learn computer languages on-line. I liked that they were free, that they had an interesting collection of languages to look at, and that they provided the testing desktop in the browser.

Aside: Of course, my case is not the norm. If you search on 10 programming languages that will not die (Lisp, Pascal, PL/1, ...), I have worked in 7 of those (plus many dozens of other languages and environments in situations that could be called production - meaning, post release with real users doing actual work that relied upon the results provided by the computer system - err, app - the modern wannabe).


Khan Academy logoToday, I was searching on a technical topic and ran across Khan Academy (KA). I had seen them before as I was watching mathematics lectures at Stanford, Harvard, and MIT. That is, today, all subjects of note are accessible.

Aside: When I earlier ran across a KA video, it was interesting. But, at the time, I wasn't so much trying to learn something; no, I was watching the classroom situation (2012, Osgood's lectures - note the Remarks during the period) across different milieus (to be discussed) and how it influences delivery/discussion, etc. (2012, Wildberger).

Aside: Before going further, let me tout Wikipedia which is the first place for me as I search. Actually, it's Google, but, for the most part, a Wikipedia article pops up early in the stack. Wikipedia is getting some press. For instance, the Economist showed, recently, a tapestry that had been made from the Wikipedia page on the Magna Carta.

But, after looking at KA today, I am going to go there often. Why? It is a great place to jump to a "101" (not meaning the highway on the West Coast - love it) view. Earlier, I probably bounced back from its K-12 framework. But, there are plenty of new topics that are beyond high school.

Too, I looked at the "Computing" pages. Very nice. Businessweek just did a special issue on code. It was written/edited by one person, Paul Ford. Very unusual tactic. But, it worked. I actually bought the paper copy after seeing the issue on-line.


Okay. What does KA bring that is more than the others? It covers a slew of disciplines. And, we all know that it is not shameful for one to look at 101 material for any discipline that is outside of one's usual work. In fact, going to that view can lead to suggestions about additional material (as we see on Wikipedia).

At the top line, click on Subject, and you will see a fairly good representation of things that ought to be in one's mixture of knowledge. So, the material may seem elementary to the expert, but any, but a node-it-all, ought to find something of interest.

There is another perspective. All of these topics have been studied by those who teach them; the teacher-to-be ran the gamut from 101 to the end of the learning process as defined by the particular discipline. So, you might look at the material to get some notion of what is involved.

If you think of yourself as learning about the basics of a subject, then you will have the right mindset for enjoying KA (that is, if you're older and set in your little knowledge sphere). As well, you will see the general view of the topic; albeit, those who might have evolved and adopted a worldview over a period of time might benefit from going back and seeing the fundamentals, from time to time.

Actually, science, in its proper mode, would require that. Axioms and other assumptions seem to get hidden, almost as a general rule.


Any enthusiasm that one can perceive in this post's message came about from two areas: computing and math. Computing has some examples, with code, that ought to avail one of successful understanding even if one must provide one's own workbench. In the math area, the collection of post-high-school topics is nice (say, multivariate calculus and pick gradient - same subject, at Wikipedia - someone put a link to the KA site - same subject at Wolfram's collection by Eric Weisstein), albeit sparsely, somewhat, covered right now.

One can easily look toward a continued expansion on each subject. And, extending out toward the first couple years of college would be a boon. Of course, it has taken Wikipedia years to collect their material (all entered by volunteer authors). So, KA will be interesting to watch and to review from time to time.

Remarks:   Modified: 06/25/2015

06/25/2015 --

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Node it all

For now, see some motivation (FEDaerated).

We will start to lay out the problems and our means for handling. In general, we can think of what we know and do not know. Let's use a simple chart.
    Know what we know - this is the basis of success and goodness
        Do not know what we [think that we] know -- all sorts of variations
                 (operational idiocy, for one)

    Know (as in, think that we know) what we do not know - again, lots to discuss
                 (fools rush in)
         Do not know (cannot know?) what we do not know - basically,
                 the infamous unknown-unknowns
                 (see 7oops7; to the wise, the largest set - listen up, cosmologists)
All sorts of modern workarounds exist, with statistical reasoning being the most insidious (many times). Think compactification (other analogs can be used) as one culprit (when applied without due concern for ramifications).

We will start from scratch. Charles Sanders Peirce, for one, will figure.

Remarks:  Modified: 07/24/2015

07/24/2015 --

Thursday, June 11, 2015


This blog has been an accumulator of posts since July of 2007. So, that is, now, almost eight years of dribbling "text" bits into the cloud for presentation to browsers on the subject of "truth" (any and all) and the engineering (including our handling) of such (hence, truth engineering - a companion blog dealt with operational aspects - 7'oops7). Along the way, there have been side roads taken, as the world has been through a lot the past decade. Don't you think?

However, the world is always thus. As I look back, every decade had its issues. As one ages, some of the older problems are resolved (or go away - like the gnats after a storm), but there is always a crop of new issues coming to fore. Perhaps, one life lesson is better handling of the change brought about by some problems.

By the way, "change" may be many things, including mental adjustments from knowing more, etc. One problem with such, though, is that one can far outdistance those around them (no hubris there; everyone learns at their own pace (whatever that is); standard pushes (yes, like STEM) may turn out to be counterproductive, as there is left little time for exploration - I wrote (and published) an oped on this subject way back as a young man in a college paper).


We're on the cusp, again, just like we were back in the 2007 time frame. I ought to use "cusps" as there are things boiling in several areas. One constant, though, is the growing use of computers, which includes the cloud. We are far beyond what was the state of the art in 2007 in several ways.

In many ways, we are not. We have argued for more recognition of quasi-empircal notions. One subject, of importance, would be undecidability. Yet, many do not appreciate the problem. For one thing, numeric processing sort of steps around the problems.

via the Friesian School
But, to use numbers, you have to number-fy; then, you need to de-number-fy (BTW, yes, this is a kludge based upon the fuzzify/defuzzify inverted scheme of fuzzy logic). It is in those areas where we really get to the problems. "halting" may have a lot to do with how well some result matches up with the expectations.

In my experience, for any bit of numeric processing, a whole lot more time went into setting up the problem and ensuring that things ran correctly. Then, there were the added tasks of making sense (in many cases, this could be a larger problem). ... People of intelligence, let me ask you? That whole sequence is now subsumed within some processes on a computer, and we are to believe such tripe just because the marketing folks think that it's okay (because the money rolls in?, Lord, help us) or because it has the mathematical basis of operational statistics?


Aside - things to look at further: Halting problem not important, ...

In a discussion of the importance, or not, of undecidability, there was the use of "intractible" which implies hard (several definitions). In one of my application foci, we solved the problem by having a human finish the work. That is, computers can chase their tails (much like dogs). Approaching some solution state that is well-defined can allow the expertise/intelligence of humans (yes, expect that we will get into the qualities related to problem solving that are not replicate-able - now (and, perhaps, not ever) to complete the process and check results. Simple statement; all sorts of implications (infer as you wish).

But, we know the other side of the story, namely that computers can run circles around humans (yes, numerically - you see). But, can the computer de-number-fy? Of course, I have to define, better, what that might mean. ... Want a metaphor? Vertigo is not far off the wall. Vertigo? Yes, a better way of saying the above - computer chasing its tail - actually, being lost/unbalanced is quite apropos.


Aside: The most atrocious of all is the modern manner of driving all sorts of human activity by computer (especially, when it tends toward solely). A bifurcation comes about where those with the numeric sense rise to be little gods (ah, the mischief they impart on the hapless - do I really need to start a litany here?) while those with other talents (far too much under-appreciated - you see, the numeric-folk'd minds see robotics as their savior - oh yes, get one to wipe your arse when you soil yourself - err, water-blasting, sand-blasting, etc., is not equivalent to a gentle touch). ... The solution, intelligent people, would be some recognizance of the peripatetic sense's necessity (oh, why do that when the mind (and its computational assistants) can run off on cosmological tangents - again, who will take care of the arses?).


So, even with its little shaky basis (and, intelligent folk, I am not talking GIGO), we allow these mechanisms to play a serious role at the heart of our economy. Oh, can it be any worse? -- perhaps, we could learn from listening to Made-off. How many of his ilk are there right now (milking the system under the guise of creating/applying Adam's little hand - this post is old, but it'll be upgraded)? Gosh, Adam rolls and rolls over in his grave.

Remarks:  Modified: 07/19/2015

06/14/2015 -- In the Feb. 2015 ACM Communications, Landwehr wrote that we need a build code for software. Is it not atrocious that we have allowed these all encompassing software disclaimers (May 2015)? With the proliferation of apps everywhere densely, this issue needs some attention. How? We have mentioned this before. However, given the hard problems, we would have to agree that we cannot ever have a node-it-all (that is, some position that can reach all) without raising the view (oh, yes, the bit of controversy there deals directly with the blind/delusion paradox). Even if we can seek the higher-view, what limits remain (as if, by residue)? Yet, carte blanche, a priori absolution of sins is very much at the heart of a whole lot of mischief.

07/19/2015 -- Today, I did a post after a few days of waffling (Many truths).  What took so long? Well, a lot of posts are in a conversational style. That implies some interchange. The epitome of that is twit-ville where the message is limited to 140 characters (or so). What would intellectuals from the past think of such nonsense that ensues? ... So, today, I pulled the content to my article editor; the effect was immediate as I have published six articles last year and have several in the works. It has to do with structure (conversation has none, essentially - too, conversation descends to the bar and barracks - you do not agree? why does Obama use the teleprompter?). As well as firming up the post, it was obvious that the thing had to split. So, a large part was cut out to spawn the next post on the subject. ... Related to this change in technique will be a re-look at posts by categories. These have been collecting over the period of the descent to hell (from which many have not escaped) and the rise of the elite (they did not go to ashes - too bad). ... The intent will be to rephrase, especially those that exhibited sophomoric presentation - mind you, there is nothing lacking in the content - albeit, many times things were left dangling, but, again, that comes from the styles reinforced by the idiotic approaches). ... Besides the 1% inflated set of goodies, the mesh has grown taut (oh, Lord).

Saturday, May 30, 2015

John and his friends

Yes, the 800th anniversary of the first sealing of the Magna Carta (WSJ overview) comes soon. It will be a big deal for a lot of people.

For all? As the bifurcations that we see all around show us, many (most) have had minimal (or no) comfort from that long ago bit of activity and angst.

John and his friends
After all, a few generations later, we found major conflict between bickering cousins (one example of many).

Has that sort of thing become less common (has it been made worse by modernity, through means such as game theory?)? Did we learn from the war to end all wars?

Remarks:  Modified: 05/30/2015

05/30/2015 --

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

JFN, Jr.

John Nash died this past weekend. He and his wife were in a taxi that crashed. Both, unfortunately, were fatally injured.

John is famous for several things. In terms of game theory, one of these is the notion of equilibrium in a multi-person, non-cooperative game. To that end, he proved existence.

For a long while, in this blog, we have mentioned that the modern "game" focus is not good (in many ways) for us. Yet, the whole of the intellectual set has run off in that direction. Now, that turn of fate has taken a long time to come about. John von Neumann did his part; John Nash gave it more of a push.

Along with the interest in applying this type of mathematics, we have seen an increase in computational power which then has kept the movement going. One could say, if there were no computer, it would be no big deal with game theory. But, they go hand in hand (just like bilking the markets are enabled by algorithms and by the general lack of understanding).

The net effect of these changes has been a cutting free of the human mind from the proper tethers. What? Yes. What might these be? Ah, much to discuss there. But, I did say a little earlier that I would be taking a different direction.

John's passing opens the door for me to revisit this whole deal; at the same time, I'll be able to argue more coherently. You see, the fumble-butt mode comes from seeing idiocy all around. How did this come to be?

However, I have seen, too, that there are islands of sanity here and there. Thank God for that. Oops, that type of thing was alluded to earlier.

Somewhere, recently, I mentioned that we need a "sucker" (sucker quoted since the connotationswill be other than used so far) game. Actually, to rephrase, a lot of games are incompletely described, even the prisoner dilemma. Why (just look at the abstract'd accumulation on that one theme)? I don't know why the intellectual bigots have allowed themselves to devolve to such a low level. Say what? Yes.

That mathematics (which is discovered more than not) has been the enabler for the emergence of stupidity is very sad. The big-mind-set, if they were only impacting themselves, would not be such a problem; however, these jerks, collectively, get themselves into the way of power and thereby get, in their minds, carte blanche to spoil the earth and its little chilluns (meaning, of course, all of those who are not of the power set). Gosh, so much to do to get the situation properly described.

So, "sucker" brought in (in other than the so-long sucker idiocy, and such)? Yes, if you would, please, conscience (a reality, from the proper point of consideration) as a part of the puzzle. Where the hell has that virtue (or, any of the other virtues) gone in the flim-flam modernity that we stumble under now?

Remarks:   Modified: 05/28/2015

05/28/2015 -- Again, again. There are a whole (larger?) bit of phenomena (however you want to characterize the wider scope) that is not brought into game theory (that I can see - I'll continue looking). Assuming that I have time, I will attempt to define some (perhaps, using situational means).

Thursday, May 14, 2015

Unplanned house?

What was that about the monkeys (thousands, millons)? They could write a book? Of course, I could have google'd the answer; the point is that "monkey" appears in a whole lot of memes.

Now, we are talking "truth" in all of its possible aspects; in computing, we deal with whether things are done as they ought (as in, expected to or specified so as to). The whole of tru'eng deals with these issues, some of which are not of practical interest, at the moment (but will be, in time). Besides, the issues of computability, we have things like goodness of systems (methods to predict (insure) such) or their soundiness.

A key issue is addressed by Leslie Lamport: Who Builds a House without Drawing Blueprints? (ACM, Comm, Vol. 48, No. 4). Leslie describes some of the motivations for his work, namely TLA - Temporal Logic of actions. It is not that doing systems is strictly like construction, after all, we do not see flow charts being used nowadays. However, nothing good comes about, except by extreme luck, from lack of planning. Agile methods (more below) seem to be like that; from where I sit, the users are expected to adapt with whatever the developers come up with, especially in the freebie systems that are so prevalent nowadays.

But, trust your life on some of this software? Earlier, we pointed to some discussion of the bazaar / cathedral theme (yes, juxtaposed, for obvious reasons). Test/code/review does not allow one to lift (to be discussed).

Now, about TLA, in the same issue of the Communications of the ACM, Amazon allowed their workers to present some comments on its use.


Aside: I fell out of my chair; for many reasons, one of which is that I have not dealt (by purpose) with the company ever (except from 10 yards away). So, I'm impressed and will look more closely at this. ... In actuality, the company has done very well in handling technical problems (I just hope that the owner doesn't diddle with the Washington's Post editoral nature - too much) that are not simple. They, like others, are facing problems daily for which there is no known solution (except that we can do types of approximations, adequately enough, so as to be practical - stacking up what karma that will bite us later? - that is, many (of the hapless) get pulled into the troubles without their knowledge and against their wishes - to wit, the idiocy of 2008 til now for which we are still paying and have a ways to go yet - world-class moron-hood, Jamie, et al). Now, I need to look at AWS for another project.


TLA has some add-ons, one of which is mentioned in the Amazon article (actually, other companies are mentioned - including Oracle): PlusCal.

Oh yes, the article: How Amazon Web Services Uses Formal Methods. There were several authors. But, this quote needs attention: A precise, testable description of a system becomes a what-if tool for designs, analogous to how spreadsheets are a what-if tool for financial models.

Of course, there is this, too: Formal methods deal with models of systems, not the systems themselves, so the adage "All models are wrong, some are useful" applies. As in, using our terms: territory-map.

One author, Marc Brooker, has blogged about his experiences (post on TLA+). Notice that the domain is fairly particular. As one travels out the abstraction chain, things get further from the machine (even if everything has to still funnel through the execution stream) into realms of creativity.

Which, then, brings up one issue. The more formal (too, the real sciences bigots who bewail that humans are so unpredictable - wake up, folks) like to think that they can compress being (whatever it is and however we might know it) into a box (actually, enmeshing our glorious selves in a trap that is onerous to the extreme) and, thereby, get risk (and all related ilk) under its thumb (hah). In actuality, we can (not the cathedral, by necessity, but with a bazaar with some bit of decorum) find our ways through to a safe and healthful experience (virtual and otherwise).

Remarks:   Modified: 05/14/2015

05/14/2015 -- If you cannot read the ACM articles, please send a note. I can pull out public links from the references which would be equivalent in concept and close in content.

05/14/2015 -- And so, after the post and content has been digested (does not imply absence of forethought), then epilog bits come to fore. The first half of that letter is what resonates. Then, Ben&Steve talking "incredible returns" in the stock market grates (harshly). For one, the thing, as run now, is a ca-pital-sino and very much can be characterized by near-zero (both terms have links in the text). Too, though, is the whole thing of the magical multiplier (wild expansion of value), of returns mainly for the early birds (connivers), and of enormous grabs (by some) that desires serious analysis (again, foreclosure - not in any way now profiting, nor in the past profited, from the gaming - whose main thing is to impoverish the masses). ... There will be a change in tone, thanks to Canfield (yes, he of the chicken soup thing). --- So, the diatribe series will stand as an example: so-called constructive looks, No. 1No. 2No. 3.

Sunday, April 26, 2015

Beats and more

A recent The Atlantic article asked something like this, can bankers behave? Well, no, given that we let them play the game in an unfair way (no wonder old Marx used "fictitious" capital); it was, at one time, the reality that the allowance for bankers was due to power; now, the computer (and applied mathematics) has muddied the waters beyond possible cleaning (not! - why else, truth engineering?).

Actually, research has shown that there are serious moral gaps within the characters of a whole lot of those who fill banker-type roles. That little glitch, plus the largess that they get (from the likes of Ben and Janet), compound the problem.


Recently, though, I ran across a page where some from the Beat generation were shown with Mary Beach that reminded me of a proper viewpoint that is antithetical, somewhat, to that of the rapacious bankers. I need to pay a little more attention to her life.

My involvement with the counterculture goes way back, as I was, sort of, forced there by the system (long story). By the time that GEK III was my roomie at KU, I had met a few, knew of some aspects of the life, and, generally, looked at it in my own autodidact sense (extreme state of not having a mentor - long story too). GEK III and I had our discussive moments (not always from the same end of the spectrum - I did end up marrying a cousin which we joked about); he was very much on the list of major characters that I have known.

A few days ago, on FB, George Laughhead, who has the Beats in Kansas (imagine) site, pushed out something that Charles Plymell wrote (a decade or so ago). Gosh, Charles' little thing spoke to me on many levels. The main point, apropos to this blog, is that these levels have to do with truth which is never simple (except under certain circumstances - to be discussed).

When you read Charles, note the mention of his ancestors. Also, recall that one model for the work here deals with the evolution (devolution, many times) of life and kind here (the beacon on a hill and dreams thereof) from those early days in the northeastern region (we have a tabla raza situation with which to ponder the true American citizen - and, where the hell did we go wrong?).

If it is not clear, many of the counterculture are more truth based than those of the major culture (at least, more so than those of the power set); too, though, we find good people everywhere. That is meant to imply that we all have dealt with all types over our years (however many). I mostly have applied the rule: when in Rome, do NOT, by any necessity, do as the Romans ;-). We all are responsible for our own selves (and those who depend upon us).


If you bring Emerson to mind, you are partly right. Reading Charles of late struck me as did running across RWE in my very early days of trying to cope with the solitude of knowing one's own mind and to deal with the reality that we all face up to the music by ourselves.

Truth engineering has a core that is strictly scientific and mathematical; however, in the larger realm, we have to have humans in the loop (all sorts of discussion here); of human kind, we have a whole lot to learn from the Beats and their times (blip on that large evolutionary screen).

Remarks:   Modified: 08/21/2015

04/26/2015 -- What is it that the Beats represent? Lot of stuff has been said about this. Good art? Freedom? One of my interests would be the historical beginnings of the views. Plenty interest abounds nowadays, so no doubt there will be academic views and analysis. But, I'm after more. On this side of the pond, one of the first true-free societies might have been in Cape Ann, prior to Conant's arrival. In a brief moment in time (well, over a year), the people were friendly within their group, peaceful with the natives, well-stocked with supplies and tools, led by a capable male who really needs to have more known about him and his children, no church (they did not have any religious representative within the group - again, not until Conant arrived, dragging along Lyford), no state (England was a long way away; Standish tried to come up and muscle his way - not), they were healthy (did not lose a soul over their winter - that came with Endicott and too many bodies for the available resources), and a whole lot more. ... One of the things that Charles wrote about was of working; that rang a bell since I have been working (chores included) from an early age; did any of the Beats work (well, I did see GEK III with a hammer once)? Oh, perhaps, it's the Maynard character that I'm recalling. ... In short, it may be that the counterculture has a greater impact (we'll have to look at that) through time.

04/29/2015 -- Added a knowledge map for GEK III which links to CP. We can use the Gaslight Tavern which was next to the Abington Book Shop as a analytic loci. ... About older sisters, my family had five girls in a row; then a boy was born, my older brother. I have, then, more male siblings, after that (the proverbial middle, pivot position, ...). But, there are many more (other) simpatico themes.

04/30/2015 -- While writing of his "belief" systematic and adopted position, CP uses belonging and joining as typical human modes in which he does not chose to partake. I can relate to that, several ways. This is not a re-phrase, but the same issue can be discussed in terms of neither a leader or follower be (mis-use of lender or borrower?). The latter? Well, the sheepish people that we see everywhere are indicative of the pervasiveness of the problem (problem or just a human characteristic?). The former? Ah, so many of those Type-A (such big idiots) jerks with which any insightful person has to cope, daily (everywhere dense, again; both uncountable?). ... The slow (well, quick scan) reader, me, just realized that Pam (CP does mention this twice) is Mary's daughter.

05/01/2015 -- Just did a knowledge map for the Maypole work of Hawthorne (cousin-in-law) with this note: the best example of an early representation of what America could be (still is not - no religious, or other, bigotry, peaceful relations, resourceful people, respect for the environment, ...) was the experience at Cape Ann, pre-Conant. But, it, somewhat, continued untll Endicott had the great house moved to Salem. Now, having said that, I went through parts of the 50s section by CP, which motivated the NH reference. Too, though, I want to thread through that whole bit of retrospective by CP by decade (time to call the chillun home?). For instance, CP was at SFS. On that same Hayakawan day, I was working my shift at Zim's (at the time, janitor, busboy, dish washer) just a few blocks away. Too, I was collecting more credits at SFCC, all of which I transferred (with accumulations from UCLA, KU, too) to UA (Tucson) a little later. Of note, though, post the madness, I knuckled under and graduated magna cum laude (Phi Kappa Phi). Yet, CP's view resonates (to be explained; has to do with a lesson that we did not learn from Albert - our wild-haired friend). Later, I worked two blocks from the Capitol (Maryland SW) in a white collar position; I can claim to have seen the American belly from about any angle that is possible (want to know what I think? the childishness of the beats, hippies is much to be preferred to that of the modern CEO - yeah, Jamie - and others of the ilk that think that we ought to love their leadership - see yesterday's Remark).

05/03/2015 -- ... which way does the beard point tonight? ..., AG, of course. ... From this Wiki page, I found a modern (somewhat) link, Cherry Valley.

07/06/2015 -- 4th anniversary, RIP, GEK III, whom I met 49 years and 11 months ago (so, the 50th is coming up - that year, 1965). ... There is some irony here. "Moral" was used early in this post. Then, the theme transitioned to a profligate generation's bit of fun. Not to be relativistic, but we can take a more broad notion of the concept. "broad" would apply across all sorts of dimensional views.

08/21/2015 -- What's it like to be poor? The Beats adopted this state, albeit, many did so volunteer'ly. Perhaps, that helped some gain understanding of the mode of life (usually imposed rather adopted).