Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus = $$$ !??

Discussion in 'Psychology' started by nitro, Oct 16, 2010.

  1. nitro


    I find this sort of thing fascinating. That a philosopher is actually making money doing it is even more spectacular.

    I have always believed that there are only three ways that man is caused misery:

    1) Man against nature
    2) Man against man
    3) Man against himself

    Most people fall into category three, where they never escape their own personality. This deals with people or situations that are somewhat successful, but have slipped for some reason. This article discusses solutions to issue 2. We are five hundred to a thousand years with being able to deal with 1 BTW, so don't bother.
  2. Change is not a phenomenon that is properly accounted for in the contemporary philosophical tradition. Contemporary analytic philosophy draws on Aristotelian theory of identity and predicate logic and as such it falls short in its ability to analyse phenomena which negate their self-identity (also known as metamorphosis or the study of change). Ken Wilk is not a published author, there is no trace to be found of his thesis "Principium Metamorpholigica" ( probably titled as a stab at Russell & Whitehead) and no articles in his name have appeared in any scientific or philosophical journal.
    This is not necessarily a bad sign though as the most talented philosophers usually work outside of academia. As a philosopher myself I 've opted to stake my claim in the investment world in order to get rich as well as to provide a practical basis for my philosophical thesis. Over the next generation there will appear some philosophical works written by me that will unite paradigm theory with Kantian conditions of possible experience. The principles contained therein will be applied to the financial markets.
  3. Western philosophy is retarded / fixated on the concept of "other". So its what philosophers have obsessed over the last 60 or so years.
  4. Undoing misery is a delightful adventure.

    It is easy to see why Wilk is so successful.

    The name of the game is two fold: problem solving and doing deals.

    Neatly, each one is done the same way: iterative refinement.
    It is very cool that at least an article appeared somewhere about how change takes place in opportunities, the real name for problem solving.

    If a person discovers the essence of every opportunity, in general so to speak, then he gets to apply it when ever and whereevver he wishes.

    All opportunities (or problems) are dealt with by taking the first step.

    As long as the height of the firt step is too tall, the status quo is maintained.

    There are two dimensions involved in looking at step size: the top of the stairs and the height of the first step.

    Everyone involved sees both and each is not accurately seen.

    Wilk is soooooo smoooth.

    He really knows how to go for the jugular of the opportunity.

    In psychiatry and psychiatry, the SOP is so out of line with the opportunity.

    The delta is an instantaneous event and it is so measurable.

    The most exciting thing is that of turning the light switch on realtive to the sensory input to alllow it to become "perception" instead of just shooting blanks and instilling the status quo yet one more lap.

    The data on the 2 four hour periods can be reduced to 2 two hour periods and still achieve an irrevokable forwarding.

    It is what is between the two periods that is MOST important.

    Anyone can have the "PROOF" of the guts of the article, personally. Actually, everyone has the PROOF but they are just so fuzzy, normally that they cannot be incisive enough to gain this realization.

    Try watching a vet pull out of seroius PTSD a few times.

    Down sizing the enviroment more and more and more makes the first step so much smaller in height.

    Wilk takes the client from "nothing" to "something". Hawking's co author is very good at this too.

    You guys are not dealing with how to get to nearly nothing to have a terrific relative impact.

    Figure out just WHAT happenis inbetween. that is what Wilk is "reading" to make "after the second event" really work.

    He chose the perfect name for his thesis.
  5. Western philosophy has not been obsessing over "other". The only philosopher that has written extensively on that topic is Levinas, who collapses "other" into an analysis of infinity within the domain of ethics. What philosophy has been obsessing about over the last 60 or so years are mostly redundant matters that were adopted under the pretense of rigour and science. Examples of this are logical positivism, ordinary language philosophy, behaviourism, eliminative materialism, experimental philosophy. They're redundant because they have either misunderstood the limits of empirical science or sought to reinvent the wheel.

    Philosophy that actually accomplishes something of interest focuses on metaphysics and ethics. The knowable and the good are the foundation to all good philosophy, which in turn provides the foundation for all good science and professionalism. Universal in nature, philosophy provides a man such as Ken Wilber with the proper foundation to solve problems in medicine and finance without a background in those specific areas. In the end, all analysis and problem solving are dependent on the conceptual frameworks we deploy to shape our experiences.
  6. Used to read Levinas. Otherwise than being - or beyond essence was probably his best book. Funny how guys like Lacan and Derrida get a free ride, I assume its your legal / ethical framework that familiarizes you with Levinas. But you have to read Jabes, Blanchot, and a bunch of literary types in conjunction it seems, for me reading Levinas got me into Blanchot and Jabes.

    I still say the other is a big thing in philosophy. But then again, my thinking is tied into how phenomenology never quite arrived beyond Merleau-Ponty.
  7. Thanks, I'll look into Blanchot and Jebes. Usually I avoid french intellectuals like the plague but I'm willing to give them a chance since they were involved with Levinas (one of the few french intellectuals whom I respect). I give guys like Lacan and Derrida a free ride as I simply ignore them. They're part of an employment scheme for dopey intellectuals and failed poets who wouldn't be able to find gainful employment elsewhere. Who cares right? It's a problem though that there usually aren't (proper) translations around and I'm not willing to invest the time to read a difficult work with my high school french skills.

    I'm reading Husserl's Krisis der Europäischen Wissenschaften at the moment and I'm familiarising myself with some of his earlier work. I'm interested in problems surrounding the object-subject distinction and condition for possible experience and I'm currently doing some research on Husserl's notions of intersubjectivity and Lebenswelt. My academic training has been in analytic philosophy but the type of philosophical problem that I'm interested in has led me to guys like Husserl. I've read some on Merleau-Pointy but I'm as of yet not sure If I can use his ideas to get where I want to be.
  8. “Everybody’s had experiences where they’ve had some big success in their life. They look back and realise it was down to one or two small things that they did,” Wilk says at his Georgian townhouse in Bath. “If they’d known to do them early on -- one phone call, a dinner with one person --

    it would have saved a lot of effort. My point is, you can find those things in advance.”

    Personally, in hindsight, knowing "those" things in advance, I may have failed or probably struggled. I've always been a bit behind the curve, just saying, you have to pay your dues.

    The example in the article is re-arranging experience.

    Good article, thanks.
    #10     Oct 16, 2010