On: The three stages in the development of Capital.

[MagsJ (Surya Loka.. triumvirate)]

@Parodites

A bunch of random people trolling on Reddit are gaining from the losses.

If the Government redistributed wealth, well… they can’t even run a DMV efficiently. These hedge funds have the ability to manipulate the market using their info, connections, pre-existing capital, friends in government, the media, etc. so that they can take a stock that isn’t doing well, bribe some agent to pass a regulation and get a news channel to talk about it, such that it makes a bunch of people lose faith in that stock and sell it … while, at the time this is going on,- because the hedge fund knows for a fact the stock is going down, since they helped to make it go down artificially,- the hedge fund can short the stock for more than the actual thing the stock represents is worth: for example, they were shorting gamestop 140 percent more than gamestop itself was worth. That would be insane to do, unless you knew for certain that stock was going down. Well a bunch of people on reddit figured this out and realized that if they all bought this stock, because the funds were shorting it more than 100 percent of its value, the funds could not meet their commitments to their investors as long as this mob was holding on to their share, (because their stock shares were worth more than 100 percent) and the longer they held on, the more money these hedge funds would lose.

A friend was watching his American stocks going down right in front of his eyes, on Friday, so I saw this happening first hand. He said he couldn’t understand why it would/should be doing that.

Haven’t people been imprisoned with very long sentences in the past, for doing such things? I guess it depends on who is manipulating the market and can therefore get away with it.

[Parodites]

@MagsJ

@Parodites

A philosopher who sees his equal in another, isn’t a philosopher. As in the Timaeus; Philosophy demands one World, one Soul, one Universe, one KOSMOS.

"As long as no-one here continues to try to undermine me, I’m good… had enough of everyone tryin that shit tho… that’s not the Way! or as they say… if you don’t know, you don’t know (shit). There are no shortcuts! " -Magsj

Ah, but that is the reason I say that a philosopher who sees his equal in another, is not a philosopher. As long as one doesn’t see their equal in another, there is no need to undermine another either. The Archimedean pride of the philosopher, that he should move the entire World with a big enough stick and a big enough fulcrum, prevents him from ever needing to use cheaper tricks in defending his ego on a psychological basis. Philosophic pride, philosophic ego, is beyond mere psychology, like the ego spoken of by Rilke: he said that to expunge the Ego entirely was not the goal, but to transform it, to purify it, to turn the ego into light, into an omnipresent, “transparent eye” in the words of Emerson,- to make one’s ego porous,- and to learn to apprehend, through it, its very object, and therefor also, the entire World through it, inasmuch as the ego’s object is properly- the World. Hence my recent fury against Fixed, who has taken to intimating my being a traitor to my political ideals (for insane reasoning by the way: I explained a few posts ago, very clearly, why his reasoning is insane) as a way of curbing my intimidating nature for himself. (If he’s not doing that for that reason, out of psychological projection, and he actually believes the insane reasoning he has ventured for it- well then I guess I give too much credit.) Up until that moment, our entire history was amenable, agreeable; we endured, like all philosophers, one another’s pride without any issue. I have an aphorism from one of my books that sums up this entire line of thought concerning philosophic pride:

"It is not our modesty, but only our arrogance, that takes offense at the arrogance of another. Prassicius, in the Naugeri Poetica Dialogus of Fracastorus, gives us to understand that great poets are not troubled by each other’s arrogance, and that only mediocre men take offense to the vaunted display of another’s laurels, as it was similarly confirmed of Syncerus by Lilius Giraldus: (in the Epistola ad Antonium Thebaldeum, progymn. item quaedam Caelius Calcagninus) cecinit qui primus in acta, non prius auditum carmen. This were the poet’s Petrarchan declaration of a more glorious Fama, and thus the rebuttal of a lesser worldly Fortune, “vitae hominum raro est invidia”; for it were but few men who deserve to be envied, whose pride were beneath the pride of an Augustus. [See Christianus Hartigius and Anton Ignatius Franciscus, in the Annus Politicus; per Duodecim Discursus tum Critico-Politicos tum Politico-Historicos Evolutus: Virtutem cole dum vivis famam invenies in sepulchro. Nominis tui memoria Phoenix erit cinerum tuorum, vives que diutius, & gloriosius, collapso in pulverem cadavere sparsa per orbem famam, quam, hac tacente, inter tuos vixeris. Vitae hominum raro super istes est invidia. Note also, the remarks of Peter Stacey, in “Roman Monarchy and the Renaissance Prince; Royal Humanism in the Regnum Siciliae”, P. 123. “The Petrarchan injunction is always ‘to cultivate virtue while you are alive and you will find fame after your death’. (Virtutem cole dum vivis famam invenies in sepulchro.) Virgil had disdained in a manly fashion the words of his detractors, relying instead upon the faith and judgement that Augustus had for his talent. Petrarch’s own fama, so roundly honoured in this world by Dionigi’s royal master, was valid because it was the verdict of a new Augustus. … In Petrarch’s disparagement of worldly fame in favour of an immortal reputation guaranteed by the recognition of a few virtuous men- true arbiters undeflected by the ebb and flow of vulgar evaluation- his argument is that those who think otherwise about fama become hostages to fortuna.”] "
– LIBER ENDUMIASKIA: THE TEARS OF SYSYNPHREUS, Being a Selection of Proverbs and Sententia Drawn Up from the “Book of Pleasure”; Proverb V.

[MagsJ (Surya Loka.. triumvirate)]

@Parodites

@Parodites

A philosopher who sees his equal in another, isn’t a philosopher. As in the Timaeus; Philosophy demands one World, one Soul, one Universe, one KOSMOS.

"As long as no-one here continues to try to undermine me, I’m good… had enough of everyone tryin that shit tho… that’s not the Way! or as they say… if you don’t know, you don’t know (shit). There are no shortcuts! " -Magsj

Ah, but that is the reason I say that a philosopher who sees his equal in another, is not a philosopher. As long as one doesn’t see their equal in another, there is no need to undermine another either. The Archimedean pride of the philosopher, that he should move the entire World with a big enough stick and a big enough fulcrum, prevents him from ever needing to use cheaper tricks in defending his ego on a psychological basis. Philosophic pride, philosophic ego, is beyond mere psychology, like the ego spoken of by Rilke: he said that to expunge the Ego entirely was not the goal, but to transform it, to purify it, to turn the ego into light, into an omnipresent, “transparent eye” in the words of Emerson,- to make one’s ego porous,- and to learn to apprehend, through it, its very object, and therefor also, the entire World through it, inasmuch as the ego’s object is properly- the World. Hence my recent fury against Fixed, who has taken to intimating my being a traitor to my political ideals (for insane reasoning by the way: I explained a few posts ago, very clearly, why his reasoning is insane) as a way of curbing my intimidating nature for himself. (If he’s not doing that for that reason, out of psychological projection, and he actually believes the insane reasoning he has ventured for it- well then I guess I give too much credit.) Up until that moment, our entire history was amenable, agreeable; we endured, like all philosophers, one another’s pride without any issue. I have an aphorism from one of my books that sums up this entire line of thought concerning philosophic pride:

Hmmm! People, huh? I don’t mean that in relation to you and Fixed, but just in general.

"It is not our modesty, but only our arrogance, that takes offense at the arrogance of another. Prassicius, in the Naugeri Poetica Dialogus of Fracastorus, gives us to understand that great poets are not troubled by each other’s arrogance, and that only mediocre men take offense to the vaunted display of another’s laurels, as it was similarly confirmed of Syncerus by Lilius Giraldus: (in the Epistola ad Antonium Thebaldeum, progymn. item quaedam Caelius Calcagninus) cecinit qui primus in acta, non prius auditum carmen. This were the poet’s Petrarchan declaration of a more glorious Fama, and thus the rebuttal of a lesser worldly Fortune, “vitae hominum raro est invidia”; for it were but few men who deserve to be envied, whose pride were beneath the pride of an Augustus. [See Christianus Hartigius and Anton Ignatius Franciscus, in the Annus Politicus; per Duodecim Discursus tum Critico-Politicos tum Politico-Historicos Evolutus: Virtutem cole dum vivis famam invenies in sepulchro. Nominis tui memoria Phoenix erit cinerum tuorum, vives que diutius, & gloriosius, collapso in pulverem cadavere sparsa per orbem famam, quam, hac tacente, inter tuos vixeris. Vitae hominum raro super istes est invidia. Note also, the remarks of Peter Stacey, in “Roman Monarchy and the Renaissance Prince; Royal Humanism in the Regnum Siciliae”, P. 123. “The Petrarchan injunction is always ‘to cultivate virtue while you are alive and you will find fame after your death’. (Virtutem cole dum vivis famam invenies in sepulchro.) Virgil had disdained in a manly fashion the words of his detractors, relying instead upon the faith and judgement that Augustus had for his talent. Petrarch’s own fama, so roundly honoured in this world by Dionigi’s royal master, was valid because it was the verdict of a new Augustus. … In Petrarch’s disparagement of worldly fame in favour of an immortal reputation guaranteed by the recognition of a few virtuous men- true arbiters undeflected by the ebb and flow of vulgar evaluation- his argument is that those who think otherwise about fama become hostages to fortuna.”] "
– LIBER ENDUMIASKIA: THE TEARS OF SYSYNPHREUS, Being a Selection of Proverbs and Sententia Drawn Up from the “Book of Pleasure”; Proverb V.

Austin Osman Spare… the dark version of Oscar Wilde. The occult unsettles me greatly, but I’ve downloaded a copy of that book, to read… I’ve only skim-read so far, it seems interesting enough to carry on… bearing in mind that I haven’t read a book, in years.