Ferdinand, I've been reading up on Rene Girard lately myself, though his books are way too much applied theoretical stuff... way too much to sift through. I buy his books and discover that the short form of his stuff ... ie.. reviews and such is way more descriptive. Beyond Jabes and Blanchot, you might come across Klossowski, and thats about it. I've read all the recent schmucks... deleuze, ricoeur, lyotard, nancy... etc.. nothing special there. They need a new Fernand Braudel though.. feel like stepping up?
"For the advice, Wilk charged a flat quarterly fee of £150,000." "He says he has executed 750 of these interventions since the late 80s, mostly for major companies including Shell and Prudential Financial, plus the NHS and others whose identities are confidential." that's quite a fee and a lot of clients over a 10+ year period; I was impressed until I read 'NHS' - UK's National Health Service, mind you maybe no one can fix that
People have mentioned that they are unable to read through expositions because of their length. This pure philosophical position is a great filter. The streams of empirical science and applied theoretical stuff (both mentioned here specifically) have an interesting junction at a paper entitled: "A Paradigm Based Solution to the Riddle of Induction." Coincidentally. it originated in the campus building I first taught in. When i left that building, coincidentally, I left behind empirical science and applied theoretical stuff because I had been told how to make money using markets. Since the folk who allow a person to work the turf required to treat the markets as an exact science haven't been mentioned, I'll mention them. Obviously, short reading stints are a criteria as well. If a paradigm is used to solve the riddle of induction (do a tab on the posters here who use induction), then you better know how a proper paradigm is made: check the "in kind" focus of Keynes. Short read. If you are going to "process" a paradigm to a conclusion, then get prepared by doing a read on logic and, in particular, logic theory by Carnap. This allows you to have two parallel paths away from and out of the probabilistic world which is a dead end inductive approach. How do you combine paradigm theory and logic theory to have a model for making money in markets? Wilk knows quite well and has never been asked. He deals with people and businesses and he does NOT deal with markets. My medical malpractice insurance covered the bases while the cost of applied medicine languished. As suggested is still languishes and Wilk's practitioners simply have reduced their error ratios. You tweak the model a little. Making money in markets is a participant orientation. Switch to a model orientation of "taking money out of markets: EXTRACTION". No one here or anyone reading this is going to take that step. You are still going to work inductively to be "traders" in a "trading" orientation. It is like asking the doctor you go to to switch from treating your illnesses which you ask hime to, to treating health which you do NOT ask him to. Imagine you are me for a moment. I have a pool extraction paradigm. It contains all the logic to model the market and extract its offer all the way down to its granularity and there is no noise nor anomalies. Putting it in people's heads is a process of building their minds (or alternatively just building an ATS). Rarely can something be given to someone else. The short attention space advanced here is not a handicap. Anyone past fifth gread can do the learning process. Inventing it was easier than constructing the learning path for others. No one (in significant figures terms) is willing to do the work, it turns out. So all of you will continue to use induction and all of you will strive to be "inside" the financial industry. It is so cool to be a parasite and "outside" of the financial industry. Read Larry Harris to find out how being a parasite works. There are only 10 to 12 leading indicators of how the financial industry "insiders" display their "tells"; "outsiders" are the ones reading the "tells". trading: NO Extraction: YES. Induction: NO deduction: YES
What you concentrate on is what you get. Seth - "The Nature of Physical Reality". That's my philosophy.