Forums  > Art  > “A Discourse on the American Revolution: Myth and Reality”  
     
Page 3 of 5Goto to page: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5 Prev Next
Display using:  

Nonius
Founding Member
Nonius Unbound
Total Posts: 12666
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2004-12-09 15:46
movie about how evil television network tv is...with FAye Dunaway and a dude that sort of reminds me of Albert Finney....maybe it is Albert Finney.....

Chiral is Tyler Durden

Nonius
Founding Member
Nonius Unbound
Total Posts: 12666
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2004-12-09 15:48
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0074958/

Chiral is Tyler Durden

Nonius
Founding Member
Nonius Unbound
Total Posts: 12666
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2004-12-09 15:49
actually, a great movie Johnny, I recommend it.

Chiral is Tyler Durden

Johnny
Founding Member

Total Posts: 4333
Joined: May 2004
 
Posted: 2004-12-09 16:55

Excellent - I'll check it out.

 


Stab Art Radiation Capital Structure Demolition LLC

James
NP High Priest

Total Posts: 2024
Joined: May 2004
 
Posted: 2004-12-09 17:23
Sorry I disappeared. have to work, ya know. wolves at the door and all that.

nahhh, i went to pick up the kids at school.

The movie is "Network" and it is rather prophetic. Check the date on when it was made, and look at TV now. Keep in mind when this movie was made, 'progressive' and 'innovative' television in the USA was "All in The Family." (a stereotype factory).

This is about another American Revolution: the television revolution.

Network is about the pioneers of television confronting the first generation of people who'd completely grown up with television.

The movie does miss out on the Cable shift (it assumes a future with four networks), but other than that, it predicts reality TV 25 years ahead of its time.

this movie, and "Being There" are very helpful in getting a sense of television and they way folks get most of their information. my own sister, for example, reads no news magazines, and gets all of her info from tv.

s
c
a
r
r
y
.
.
.

back to my own 'heart of darkness' i.e. arguing with seed capital and my 3rd party capital raising guy.

"Reality is that which, when you choose not to believe in it, doesn't go away." Phillip K. Dick

Nonius
Founding Member
Nonius Unbound
Total Posts: 12666
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2004-12-09 17:27
are you mad as hell and you aren't going to take it anymore?

Chiral is Tyler Durden

James
NP High Priest

Total Posts: 2024
Joined: May 2004
 
Posted: 2004-12-09 17:50
"That's When I Reach For My Revolver"

Once I had my heroes
Once I had my dreams
But all of that is changed now
The truth begins again
The truth is not that comfortable, no
Mother taught us patience
The virtues of restraint
Father taught us boundaries
The knowledge we must go
I'm trying to protect my unity

That's when I reach for my revolver
That's when it all gets blown away
That's when I reach for my revolver
The spirit passes by this way

A friend of mine once told me
His one and only aim
To build a giant castle
And in it sign his name
Sign it with complete community

That's when I reach for my revolver
That's when it all gets blown away
That's when I reach for my revolver
The spirit passes by this way

Now that the sky is empty
And that is nothing new
Instead they look upon us
When they tell me
That we're nothing
I say!

That's when I reach for my revolver
That's when it all gets blown away
That's when I reach for my revolver
The spirit passes by this way

That's when I reach for my revolver
That's when it all gets blown away
That's when I reach for my revolver
The spirit passes by this way

"Reality is that which, when you choose not to believe in it, doesn't go away." Phillip K. Dick

bloodninja
Forum Surgeon

Total Posts: 904
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2004-12-09 18:03

Not to get off topic, but, James, not only is suicide a permanent solution to a temporary problem it should also be said that it is also forbidden in a variety of religions. As one example,  Dante Alighieri details (Canto 13) a certain place in Hell reserved exclusively for suicides (Seventh circle / second ring: A floor above the sodomites, blasphemers and usurers and one below the homicidal maniacs, war mongers, and murderers). In any event, suicide has been discussed elsewhere on the forum; it is recommended that perhaps you have a look there.

HIH


Don't try

Johnny
Founding Member

Total Posts: 4333
Joined: May 2004
 
Posted: 2004-12-09 18:30
This is all jolly interesting, but it's just filler until LondonPete shows up with his essay ... although I think there's a higher chance of Father Christmas flying past with his sleigh pulled by a herd of flying pigs ...

Stab Art Radiation Capital Structure Demolition LLC

bloodninja
Forum Surgeon

Total Posts: 904
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2004-12-09 19:37

Johnny,

You're just the guy I wanted to talk to. Say that I have 2 options O1 and O2. O1 recieves a continuous coupon of (sig s)^2 Gamma1 LESS (sig s)^2 Gamma2 and option2 recieves a continuous coupon of (sig s)^2 Gamma1 PLUS (sig s)^2 Gamma2:

Thus:

\partial_t O1 = - sig^2 S^2 \partial_SS O2

 \partial_t O2 = sig^2 S^2 \partial_SS O1

right?

Thoughts?


Don't try

Nonius
Founding Member
Nonius Unbound
Total Posts: 12666
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2004-12-10 09:34

and I just wanted to say, here is my programme:

1.  Sup Harrison Kreps up to the case where the factors driving prices live on a smooth finite dim Riemannian manifold.  Do this in the discrete world.

2.  Take a swaption-analytically tractable IR model that has some economic viability.  Suppose it is a 4 dimensional model. That means the covariance structure is a 4x4 cov mat which lives on a 10 dim space.

3.  Assume that covariance movements are independent of market movements, so that for each state of covariance, the swaption price should, I think, just be forward values of swaptoins but under different covariance matrix assumptions.

4.  Build a calibration routine to back out the current "observed" covariance structure.

5.  Build a lattice in the space of covariance matrices using an isotropic branching process along geodesics. Assign probs to the lattice so that you get a martingale, this I think is easy, just equal probs, but you want distance related to time by sqr root.

6. adjust the probabilties of transitioning so that relative prices (relative to the money market account) of 10 swaptions are martingales.  This is a collection of linear problems, since sum of weigthed probs times prices is set to current price for each of the ten swaptions. 

looking for coauthor on this.

er, where were we on LP now?


Chiral is Tyler Durden

Johnny
Founding Member

Total Posts: 4333
Joined: May 2004
 
Posted: 2004-12-10 10:00

Johnny, You're just the guy I wanted to talk to.

Hi BN, I saw your thread on this and was flattered that you put me on the list of people who might be able to answer. But honestly, this is one of those threads that I read with starry-eyed wonder and leave to the grown-ups. This is often my experience with your stuff. Sorry not to be more helpful. Expressionless

 


Stab Art Radiation Capital Structure Demolition LLC

bloodninja
Forum Surgeon

Total Posts: 904
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2004-12-10 13:31

Hey no worries Johnny. Instead, I'll reply more fully over in the student section in my Feynman Kac thread.

Nonius,

That sounds like a good idea.


Don't try

Nonius
Founding Member
Nonius Unbound
Total Posts: 12666
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2004-12-10 21:05
anyway, I love this.  I am becoming an educational reactionary.  I am tending towards the belief that the only subjects worth while are math, physics, history, literature, art, and music.  I got ripped in my "education" on history and lit.....I am trying to articulate in another story about the importance of contemplating history, mostly, because there is only ONE 'History of Earth'.   I am failing so far, but, if I spend more time in historical centers and take more Melt, I'll get the idea out someday.

Chiral is Tyler Durden

bloodninja
Forum Surgeon

Total Posts: 904
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2004-12-10 21:50

Not sure how it works for others, but over the years, history has never pissed me off. Math / physics / art have each seriously pissed me off more then once (infact, right now I think it's safe to say I'm pretty pissed off at all three of them). By contrast, history has never pissed me off. Ever. 

Speaking of History in general makes me think of Karl Marx, which makes me think of Eric Hobsbawm ( I thought  his Age of Revolution / Age of  Empire / Age of Capital / Age of Extremes weren't bad) . Not that I agree with either Marx or Hobsbawm ( I actually don't) but that's what happens in my head none the less. Wikipedia's got some interesting stuff about Hobsbawm (with an interesting link to a Gaudian article):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Hobsbawm 


Don't try

Johnny
Founding Member

Total Posts: 4333
Joined: May 2004
 
Posted: 2004-12-10 22:08

If you like Hobsbawm, you might also like to read some Christopher Hill. Both were members of the Communist Party Historians Group (yes!). Hobsbawm was more international in outlook than Hill who specialised in British history, so at first glance you might think that Hill wouldn't appeal. However, Hill's period was the British civil war which was the period of the utopianism etc I was writing about at the start of this thread. This utopianism was the same, the very same as the revolutionary utopianism that fired up the pilgrims on The Mayflower and that still continues in the minds and hearts of some Americans. I have read The World Turned Upside Down and a couple of others. It's all good. If you like a bit of radical thought, you could do a lot worse.

 


Stab Art Radiation Capital Structure Demolition LLC

LondonPete


Total Posts: 1183
Joined: Apr 2004
 
Posted: 2004-12-12 14:05

Hill is very rarely referred to now, Hobsbawm is citied marginally more but their historiography is very out of date.  Both are really play things now, although Marxists can certainly be a good read.  Using old historiography is a bit like a physicist today trying to exclusively use particle explanations in quantum physics while completely ignoring the work of de Broglie and what has sprouted from that.  Just as wave-particle dualism can explain more observations, so does newer historiography explain more of observed events in history.  The trouble with Marxist historians is that they are trying to make history into a science, which is a fallacy.  Moreover, for many, their bias negatively affected their work.  Conversely however this easy categorisation inherent in their interpretations makes them very attractive (which is why they can be a good read).  The nail in the coffin for Marxist history came with the collapse of the Soviet Union and other "communist" states which removed the last vestiges of new academic impetus and mass support for these views. 

A problem I have with today's British historiography is the dominance of the Whig view, and I must admit I fall into this category quite often.  I think it's quite pertinent to mention this in this thread because it's the same problem that befalls historiography of the American Revolution (and American history) to an even greater extent.  Mainly because Whig historiography is the justifying force for Britain’s revolutions in the last few centuries – it does this very simply by saying we didn’t have any and this makes us special (better still superior).  Similarly, after the American Revolution it was necessary for the new country to justify its fiercely abhorrent actions (as viewed by contemporaries on both sides).  The reason is that there's less debate about the American Revolution than about seventeenth century British history (about which there is much), and much work that does challenge American history of this period is mainly driven by re-working British history (of course both are intertwined in this period so this is logical).  For example, the idea the American Revolution was caused by religious divide.  Now, there is significant empirical evidence to support this view (of course it wasn't the exclusive driver) but does go against the mainstream historiography.

As for Britain, the historical debate at present is really between the Whigs and the Revisionists.  The revisionists created all the sexy new work of the late 1960s onwards, which ignored all previous debate and went back to empirical evidence to reinvigorate debates which were being driven by Whigs and Marxists.  Today, David Irving is probably the most notorious revisionist historian for his 'work' (some might be as kind as to call it that) on Nazi Germany.  He is a nut rather than a prime example of the revisionist community.

Incidentally there was an interview recently on BBC4 Television with Eric Hobsbawm (who's still just about alive).  Sadly the interviewer (Kirsty Wark – Newsnight) wasn't up to much.  Apparently his membership to the Communist Party only ceased in 1986 (damn that Glasnost!) having been a member since 1936.


You might very well think that, I couldn't possibly comment.

James
NP High Priest

Total Posts: 2024
Joined: May 2004
 
Posted: 2004-12-12 15:39
"Not to get off topic, but, James, not only is suicide a permanent solution to a temporary problem it should also be said that it is also forbidden in a variety of religions."

I clearly don't merit enough interest on your part for you to read my other posts.

"Reality is that which, when you choose not to believe in it, doesn't go away." Phillip K. Dick

bloodninja
Forum Surgeon

Total Posts: 904
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2004-12-12 16:57

James,

No way. I  read your posts because they're always funny / informative = excellent.

It was a joke man.  Obviously a bad one. Sorry 'bout that. My bad. Won't happen again.

Peace.

--------------------------------

London Pete 

I agree that Marxists can make for a good read and that was my point in a round about way; e.g.,  Even though Hobsbawm is a Marxist historian that agenda doesn't come through overwhelmingly in his 'Age of' books, which seem to be written for a wider  'popular' audeince then for his professional colleagues. Those 'Age of' books are pretty good reads.

Incidently, Marxism and communism are pretty clearly different things; at least to the degree that one relates to theories of history and the other relates to specific geopolitical situations / 'revolutions'. The latter don't seem be made up of an entirely coherent single view (which I believe Karl would have us think in the first place) and instead ranged over names like Trotsky / V. I. Lenin/  Stalin /  Mao / Guevara /  etc who disagreed with each other in some cases to the degree that they assassinated their opponents over their difference of opinion.  That divergence says something about Karl's brain child. What's more, during those various periods of disagreement, it would seem that various Marxist historians (including Hobsbawm) sat on the side lines in Europe and America writing commentary about how they did or didn't see what was happening in 'communism' as being in line with 'marxism'. In other words, with hindsight, it is pretty clear that Marxism and Communism was a big wooly mass of diverging opionions that came unraveled virtually right out of the starting blocks. 

By '91 the whole picture was essentially dead in the ditch (as you say); but I'm not sure when it died or even if it was alive to begin with in the first place. For example, (and this is getting at why I brought up Marxism specifically in regards to speaking of History) history as a science was declared 'Dead' by Fukuyama in '89. But perhaps that's your point with the Whigs.


Don't try

James
NP High Priest

Total Posts: 2024
Joined: May 2004
 
Posted: 2004-12-12 17:06
No harm done. But I must not be expresing myself well lately. I've had lots^n of misunderstandings lately, and hence my memory of the old Mission of Burma song (Catherine Wheel also covers it well, but not Moby).

"Reality is that which, when you choose not to believe in it, doesn't go away." Phillip K. Dick

LondonPete


Total Posts: 1183
Joined: Apr 2004
 
Posted: 2004-12-12 18:49

Bloodninja:
Hehe Fukuyama.  Well there's so many facets to historiography, you've got Whigs vs. Revisionists as one example in British history.  Just a few more - Intentionalists (top-down, importance of figures) vs. Structuralists (bottom-up, importance of the masses).  Good examples of this are the Russian Revolution being led in a forceful coup by Trotsky (incidentally subsequent Soviet historiography bumped up Lenin & Stalin's importance for obvious political reasons).  Another example is Winstan Churchill.  Look at the praise gushed on him, and the way he is used today as a model fearless leader in the “War” Against Terror.  You don’t hear about his opium smoking university days or desire to launch a mass surprise mustard gas attack on Germany – Britain needed a model like that at the time.  While a struturalist's example would be that if Hitler had not existed a similar figure would have been created by the environment at the time in Germany (somewhat contentious).
Then of course you've got Fukuyama et al. - where is history leading us?  Anyway Fukuyama is simply wrong.  I shall use an example mentioned earlier by someone else in this thread.  Simplistically, he (and others) cannot conceptualise a society that is regarded as “better” from a present day western perspective, yet there are many “inferior” models.  Now, democracy was of course conceptualised long, long, long ago, however, it was for many centuries regarded as abhorrent & anarchic.  It would destroy order.  Order was incredibly important right up until the nineteenth century because of the piety that existed in “western world”.  Anarchy was hell, anarchy was not Godly (it is from this where popular aversion for rioting be it the Gordon Riots or the American Revolution came from).  Those who participated in any rioting right up to the nineteenth century were therefore deviant, and the causation to engage in such activities must have been immense.  Piety aside, I’m pretty sure the Greeks saw anarchy in democracy too, I forget.  Anyway, the point is society and perceptions change.  You cannot rule out a "better" model than liberalism coming into existance or that liberalism becomes unworkable and the present-day repulsive theocracy or the such becomes attractive again.

I personally don’t start seeing past events as history until it’s 100 years old.  Hobsbawm should’ve waited.  His background could well have affected his historiographical model (i.e. Marxism) in reaction to Fascist Germany.  One shouldn’t comment on things more recent than that in any historical sense.  Anything newer is just temporarily old politics.  I think the best utility is gained from history if one acts as an historicist.  That is absolving oneself from the present and delving into the past, and creating the world as it was in your own mind – social mindsets, society’s structure, piety, politics, and economy.  One therefore does not enter historical study in the attempt to prove a hypothesis or strengthen an argument.  The facts are laid bare.  That perhaps lead’s us to E.H. Carr’s infamous “What is history?” (1961).

I fully agree.  Communism is not Marxism.  Bolshevism (the “winning”) “communists” of 1917 onwards was not Communism neither was Maoism etc.  My own opinion is that Communism and its derivatives breaks down because of greed – be it for money or status.  With the simultaneous existence of capitalism as competition in the short-term Communism's short-comings are also obvious.  Moreover, in true Marxism there is a natural evolution to utopia.  Not a forced one (i.e. Communism and its derivatives).

As for Marx, I see the modern western world as on some unstoppable ever encroaching march to socialism.  Privatisation?  Sheesh, that’s temporary politics’ noise.  In a couple of years I’ll be able to start justifying that comment with the centenary of New Liberalism’s 1906 manifesto.  The Mensheviks should’ve held out.  That’s probably just my libertarian axe-to-grind politics creeping in though.

 


You might very well think that, I couldn't possibly comment.

bloodninja
Forum Surgeon

Total Posts: 904
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2004-12-12 20:21

Fukuyama is dead?

 


Don't try

LondonPete


Total Posts: 1183
Joined: Apr 2004
 
Posted: 2004-12-12 20:25

Yes, Fukuyama's Dead is dead.  A stupid assertion for him to make for so many reasons, whether you use my crude 100-year rule if nothing, but more really beause history itself proves him to be wrong, with the example I mentioned.  History is change (on the liberalism issue), I mean it's a no-brainer IMHO.  History as science, well Marx took a particular view on history which many viewed as observing and predicting history as a science.  Communists weren't playing by the rules of Marx so as you say Dead never started.


You might very well think that, I couldn't possibly comment.

James
NP High Priest

Total Posts: 2024
Joined: May 2004
 
Posted: 2004-12-12 20:34
Question: if in ten years there are elections in Iraq and it is a secualr, muslim, free market, democracy, will you then return here and edit your posts to not say 'Fukuyama is dead'?

BTW saying "Fukuyama is dead" = saying "Hegel is dead."

"Reality is that which, when you choose not to believe in it, doesn't go away." Phillip K. Dick

LondonPete


Total Posts: 1183
Joined: Apr 2004
 
Posted: 2004-12-12 20:42

No.  I've justified myself in that larger (17:49) piece of text.  I agree with much of what he says (as this is merely statment of fact) but not his key thrust - I do not believe you can rule that in x hundred years democracy will be the dominant form of government.  As he admits history will continue to occur but no new forms of government will be conceptualised or adverse shocks that make democracy permanently unworkable?


You might very well think that, I couldn't possibly comment.
Previous Thread :: Next Thread 
Page 3 of 5Goto to page: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5 Prev Next