The Stranger

When I was little one of my plans was that I wanted to write a novel with reference to The Stranger about a guy who goes to the US and deliberately kills someone just to get sentenced to death, and executed. I did not completely figure out the meaning revolving around this archaic idea back then, maybe there was an uneasiness that Camus is superficial and does not work on the last layer, the terminal layer of all things (and ideed, the last, terminal layer of all things and of all vision is NOT the absurd but is to directly gaze into the chaosmos and amalgamate with the chaosmos). Well, later in the Book of Strange and Unproductive Thinking I came to think about it again and finally did it.

(Maybe the philosophical associative chain would go like this: The Stranger is hollowman establishing some perspective on man, although there is some stringency to his acts they lack cohesion and are weak and confuse; whereas the Hyper Stranger who deliberately goes to the US to kill someone to have himself killed would be a hollowman who establishes a plateau, his own territory, his own island, therefore become more, and actually, autonomous in contrast to the Stranger, who is not (it is just that his true essence is revealed in the end, if I remember that correctly). Thinking along these lines I wonder about the possibility of the Ultra Stranger, and what he might do, The Ultra Stranger! That the Ultra Stranger is now going to haunt my mind and I would have to examine the Ultra Stranger comes as a mixed blessing, it will distract me from my three dozen other intellectual projects which are worked through in my head at the moment, and every day an additional one seems to come around, yet finally it will make my network more dense, glorious and adapted to the last, the terminal layer of reality, and as far as I can see there is no other possibility to achieve that. Btw when I think of Camus the message of his books actually is that human relations ARE meaningful and it is the concept of the absurd which is the delusion. Existentialism is inevitable, but nihilism is not, it is, eventually, a personal choice, or a personal failure, When I tried it with philosophy as a teenager my first contact was Sartre, I found it, both as literature and as philosophy, interesting, but unsatisfying, somehow simple, simplistic, and ultimately untrue. Before that, when I was 15 years old, I wrote a manifesto for a global movement to overcome all problems, it was born out of a joke but also reached into the serious, years later I realized that I was actually outlining an approach for a Theory of Everything in search for a deep structure behind mathematics, economics, the human realm, and being in general. The core message was that every entitiy, whether virtual, platonic or actual, embodies a certain quality named Fucking Scrambled Eggs (referring to an insider joke between me and some friends of mine at that time), this is the deep structure of all reality and shows how everything is connected. In order to actually understand that you of course first have to trespass Sartre, Camus, the absurd, and some other things lol)

strangercamus

Philip Hautmann „Sugar Bill (was für ein Name, der ja absolut nicht passt und in keiner Weise adäquat ist) kauft sich ein Ticket nach Amerika, dieses verrückte Land, bringt dort einen um, lässt sich verhaften, zum Tod verurteilen und hinrichten, der verrückte Kerl. Das war die ganze Geschichte, damit ist mir ein noch größerer existenzieller Luftikus gelungen als Camus` Fremder, aber wie gesagt, die Geschichte ist schon wieder aus, Sugar Bill bereits bei seinen Ahnen, von denen er sich gleich nach seiner Geburt bereits so weit entfremdet hatte, dass keine Behörde dieser verrückten Welt ihn irgendwie über deren Begräbnistermine hätte in Kenntnis setzen können, also hat meine Geschichte, verglichen zu der von Camus, nicht einmal einen Anfang.“ (S. 57)

Stephen Faust Those turning points, those interstitial layers, where gestalt gives over to a new Order of things, oft give the lie to what seems so profound and underlying of all. Simply to appeal to a bottom line is not to draw the whole map, nor pointing to a handful of dirt creates the moon anew.

Welt

„Ein Blick von Menschen solchen Formats auf heutige Philosophen ist beschämend. Welche Geringfügigkeit der Person! Welche Alltäglichkeit des politischen und praktischen Horizonts! Wie kommt es bloß, dass die bloße Vorstellung, einer von ihnen sollte seinen Rang als Staatsmann, als Diplomat, als Organisator großen Stils, als Leiter irgendeines mächtigen, kolonialen, kaufmännischen oder Verkehrsunternehmens beweisen, geradezu Mitleid erregt? Aber das ist kein Zeichen von Innerlichkeit, sondern von Mangel an Gewicht. Ich sehe mich vergebens um, wo einer von ihnen durch auch nur EIN tiefes und vorauseilendes Urteil in einer entscheidenden Zeitfrage sich einen Namen gemacht hätte. Ich finde nichts als Provinzmeinungen, wie sie jeder hat. Ich frage mich, wenn ich ein Buch eines modernen Denkers in die Hand nehme, was er vom Tatsächlichen der Weltpolitik, von den großen Problemen der Weltstädte, des Kapitalismus, der Zukunft des Staates, des Verhältnisses der Technik zum Ausgang der Zivilisation, des Russentums, der Wissenschaft überhaupt ahnt. Goethe hätte das alles verstanden und geliebt. Von den heutigen Philosophen übersieht es nicht einer.“

Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes

matrix

Aber ICH verstehe das alles! Und ICH übersehe das alles! ICH! ICH! ICH! ICH! HAHAHAHAHAHA! http://www.philiphautmann.at/problems-and-perspectives-in-contemporary-world-order/

Russland

prayer

„Tolstoi ist durchaus ein großer Verstand, „ auf-
geklärt“ und „sozial gesinnt“. Alles was er um sich sieht, nimmt
die späte, großstädtische und westliche Form eines Problems an.
Dostojewski weiß gar nicht, was Probleme sind …
(Tolstoi) gehört irgendwie zu Marx, Ibsen und Zola. Seine Werke sind nicht Evangelien, sondern späte, geistige Literatur.
Dostojewski gehört zu niemand, wenn nicht zu den Aposteln des Urchristentums. Seine „Dämonen“ waren
in der russischen Intelligenz als konservativ verschrien. Aber
Dostojewski sieht diese Konflikte gar nicht. Für ihn ist zwischen
konservativ und revolutionär überhaupt kein Unterschied: beides
ist westlich. Eine solche Seele sieht über alles Soziale hinweg.
Die Dinge dieser Welt erscheinen ihr so unbedeutend, daß sie
auf ihre Verbesserung keinen Wert legt. Keine echte Religion
will die Welt der Tatsachen verbessern. Dostojewski wie jeder
Urrusse bemerkt sie gar nicht; sie leben in einer zweiten, meta-
physischen, die jenseits der ersten liegt. Was hat die Qual einer
Seele mit dem Kommunismus zu tun? Eine Religion, die bei Sozial-
problemen angelangt ist, hat aufgehört, Religion zu sein. Dostojewski aber lebt schon in der Wirklichkeit einer unmittelbar bevorstehenden religiösen Schöpfung. Sein Aljoscha ist dem Verständnis aller literarischen Kritik,
auch der russischen, entzogen; sein Christus,
den er immer schreiben wollte, wäre ein echtes Evangelium ge-
worden wie jene des Urchristentums, die gänzlich außerhalb aller
antiken und jüdischen Literaturformen stehen. Aber Tolstoi ist
ein Meister des westlichen Romans — Anna Karenina wird von
keinem zweiten auch nur entfernt erreicht — , ganz wie er auch
in seinem Bauernkittel ein Mann der Gesellschaft ist, Anfang und Ende stoßen hier zusammen. Dostojewski ist ein Heiliger, Tolstoi ist nur ein Revolutionär.
Das Christentum Tolstois war ein Mißverständnis. Er sprach von Christus und meinte Marx. Dem Christentum Dostojewskis gehört das nächste Jahrtausend“.

Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, II., S. 235ff

prayer6

Philip Hautmann Tolstoi, Krieg und Frieden, habe ich als Jüngling mal zu lesen versucht, habe aber auf Seite 400 oder so damit wieder aufgehört, weil mir das Aristokratengeschwätz nach dieser Weile zu sehr auf die Nerven gegangen ist. Anna Karenina habe ich nur als Film gesehen, aber ich habe mit diesen unwichtigen Charakteren und jenen unwichtigen Problemen, die da vorgeführt werden, nicht wirklich was anfangen können. Freilich mag die Leistung Tolstois darin liegen, die tiefe Ernsthaftigkeit unwichtiger menschlicher Probleme darzustellen, sicherlich liegt sie darin, und ich werde ihn irgendwann mal genauer lesen; aber bei Dostojewski hat man halt mal die tiefschürfendsten Probleme und selbst die siebte Nebenfigur von hinten links präsentiert sich uns in einem rätselhaften Leuchten, während bei Tolstoi einen alle auf uncoole Weise nerven bzw. ihr fahles Licht über uns werfen. Und so hat man bei Dostojewski den tiefen inneren Zusammenhang und Zusammenhalt der Welt; bei Shakespeare hingegen die Vorführung von lauter vollkommen unwichtigen Problemen, zufällige Wellenkräuselungen dort, wo das Flüssige das Feste zu berühren versucht, und die dann wieder verschwinden, ohne irgendwas zu hinterlassen; Probleme, die daraus entstehen und darin wieder vergehen, dass die Menschen zu dumm sind, um authentisch miteinander zu kommunizieren, oder aber halt zu brutal, als Stücke auf einer Bühne, die aber nicht die Bühne der Welt ist. In den Sonetten war Shakespeare zutiefst spirituell, insgesamt aber eben so, als wie wenn die Welt und die Überwelt getrennte Sphären wären, zwischen denen keine eigentliche Kommunikation möglich ist, und so zerfällt das eine in Sinnlosigkeit und auch das andere, und, wie ich bereits einmal erwähnt habe, kann ich mit den Sonetten von Shakespeare nur bedingt was anfangen, vielleicht eben auch deswegen. Bei Dostojewski hingegen hat man das Aufgehen des Personalen in der Welt, im Transpersonalen; auch wenn Raskolnikow mit seinem ursprünglichen Approach nicht völlig unrecht hat und die Brüder Karamasow zu Unrecht verurteilt werden, ist die Läuterung, durch die sie hindurchgehen, das, was sie tatsächlich personalisiert und letztendlich bedeutsam macht. Einer hat mal gemeint, Dostojewski sei der größte Schriftsteller der Neuzeit, ein anderer hält Shakespeare dafür; man kann natürlich einräumen, Shakespeare war ein Engländer in der Dämmerung der Neuzeit und konnte daher nicht die Vollständigkeit und Reife aufweisen wie Dostojewski als Russe des 19. Jahrhunderts, aber Giganten wie Shakespeare und Dostojewski erheben sich über Zeit und Raum und haben auch ihren Ursprung nicht dort, sondern im Hyperraum und in der Zeitlosigkeit, und was sie uns präsentieren, sind sie in ihrem vollständig verwirklichten Potenzial; ja, es erscheint schwierig, genau zu ermitteln, wie das Zeitliche in das Zeitlose hineinreicht und sich gegenseitig durchdringt, der Scherz mit der Herangehensweise vom Tod des Autors aber auf jeden Fall hat bereits wieder das Zeitliche gesegnet, er war zwar, im geistesgeschichtlichen Verlauf, notwendig, aber irrelevant.

prayer2

Ein Schriftsteller muss spirituell sein, sonst wird das niemals wirklich was; und wenn er eine einigermaßen mieselsüchtige Weltsicht hat, wie Kafka oder Beckett, so waren Kafka und Beckett als Personen spirituell und in ihrem Verhalten ihren Mitmenschen gegenüber, so wie Wittgenstein als Existenzphilosoph keine ethischen Sätze aufgestellt hat, da das logisch nicht möglich ist, aber eben ethisch gelebt hat und so eben etwas objektiviert hat und ein Beispiel gegeben hat, und so ist die Art, wie Kafka, Beckett und Wittgenstein ihr Leben gelebt haben ebenso bedeutsam wie ihr Werk. Vielleicht sollte ich in dem Zusammenhang Paul Coelho lesen; dass die Halbintelligenten über ihn lästern und ihn verächtlich machen ist vielleicht ein gutes Zeichen, wenngleich es natürlich auch so sein kann, dass sie damit recht haben und auf den Grund der Sache getaucht und das Wesen der Sache tatsächlich erfasst haben, so wie es bei ihnen ja hin und wieder der Fall sein kann; Spengler ist zwar auch kein vollkommen Intelligenter, aber schon ein deutlich schwierigerer und kapriziöser Fall, da muss man sich schon in was hineinversetzen und sich meditativ versenken, wenn man versuchen will, den Wahrheitsgehalt seiner zahlreichen und mannigfaltigen Aussagen zu bestimmen. Die Lektüre von Khalil Gibran hat mich immer wieder komisch berührt, der Prophet, der Narr und auch der Liebesbriefwechsel zwischen ihm und May Ziada, die er dann seltsamerweise innerhalb von 19 Jahren nie persönlich treffen wollte; wer so anbiedernd schreibt und Prophet sein will, ohne auch nur irgendwelche echten Herausforderungen an die Herde zu stellen, an dem muss irgendwas faul sein. Bhagwan hat einmal ausgeplaudert, Khalil Gibran, der herzerwärmende Dichter, sei, vor allem Frauen gegenüber, cholerisch und unbeherrscht gewesen und habe sie auch geschlagen. Ich weiß ja nicht, ob das stimmt, aber immer wenn ich Gibran gelesen habe, habe ich etwas derartiges vor Augen gehabt und in der Melodie seiner Worte so was wie das Klatschen von Ohrfeigen auf den Gesichtern von Frauen vernommen; ein aufgeblasenes Ego, das dauernd platzt, und ein artifizielles, das sich dann eben immer wieder in derartigen Explosionen entlädt, innerlich hilflos. Ich kann mich natürlich auch irren, aber ich glaube, Khalil Gibran ist keiner, der das Chaos tatsächlich beherrscht und einen eisernen Ring schmieden kann, in dem er das Chaos bezwingt, den hochzeitlichen Ring der Ringe, den Ring der Wiederkunft. Dostojewski konnte das, Kafka auch, Beckett auch.

GIF: Der hochzeitliche Ring der Ringe, der Ring der Wiederkunft

prayer5

China

 

Die chinesische Religion, deren große »gotische" Zeit um 
1300 — 1000 liegt und den Aufstieg der Dschoudynastie umfaßt, 
will mit äußerster Vorsicht behandelt sein. Angesichts der flachen 
Tiefe und pedantischen Schwärmerei der chinesischen Denker 
vom Schlage des Konfuzius und Laotse, die alle im ancien regime 
dieser Staatenwelt geboren waren, scheint es sehr gewagt, auf 
eine Mystik und Legende großen Stils am Anfang überhaupt 
schließen zu wollen, aber sie muß einmal dagewesen sein...
Wir wissen jetzt, daß es entgegen der allgemeinen Annahme 
ein mächtiges altchinesisches Priestertum gab.i) Wir wissen, daß 
im Texte des Schuking Reste der alten Heldensänge und Götter- 
mythen rationalistisch verarbeitet und so erhalten geblieben sind; 
ebenso würden das Chouli, Ngili und Schiking noch sehr vieles 
offenbaren, sobald man sie mit der Überzeugung prüft, daß hier 
viel Tieferes vorliegen muß, als Konfuzius und seinesgleichen 
begreifen konnten. Wir hören von chthonischen und phallischen 
Kulten der frühen Dschouzeit, von einem heiligen Orgiasmus, 
wobei der Götterdienst von ekstatischen Massentänzen begleitet 
war, von mimischen Darstellungen und Wechselreden zwischen 
dem Gott und der Priesterin, woraus sich vielleicht ganz wie in 
Griechenland das chinesische Drama entwickelt hat.

Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, Band 2, S. 350f.

EM

Am besten und interessantesten von der EM finde ich, wenn die Mannschaften am Anfang mit den Kinderchen an der Hand einmarschieren. Kinder, zumindest im abstrakten Sinn und vor allem Mädchen, die, mit ein wenig guten Willen, das absolut Gute und Unverseuchte symbolisieren, erfreuen mein Herz, sie verkörpern, was aus einem Menschen werden kann, nicht, was aus ihnen dann tatsächlich geworden ist. Es hat mich dann also sehr aufgeregt, wie gestern als die beiden Mannschaften kurz vor Anpfiff aneinander vorbeimarschiert und sie sich gegenseitig alle die Hände geschüttelt haben, das Mädchen, das den Ball gehalten hat in der Reihe der Deutschen von den meisten Polen dabei ignoriert worden ist, obwohl es hoffnungsvoll die Hand nach allen ausgestreckt hat. Menschen sind einfach so primitiv und so grindig und so grauslich und sie sind solche Fetzenschädel; ich kotz gleich halb Europa voll.candlegirl3

About Hyperinfinite Sets, Again

Because I – cautiously – thought it could meet some resonance there I posted my note about Count Scelsi in the Pretentious Classical Music Elitists group yesterday. It contains things that are the most substantial and are the most sympathetic that can be said about Scelsi, as always when I say something it is among the most substantial and the most sympathetic that can be said about the respective subject. It got zero Likes from the Pretentious Elitists, and at least the statement about how to properly understand economics I posted on my timeline yesterday received one Like after many hours. Rumi says, in God´s world nothing is more difficult to bear than the absurd. Fortunately I don´t predominantly see the absurd, I only see hyperinfinite sets, like Attar, which practically seems to imply that while I can relate to a lot of different, and heterogenous groups, the divergences prevail everywhere. At least people who know me generally like me. Why not, I also generally like people, try to constructive in general. Ubi bene, ibi patria.

Economics 1

I think I will get me this book. Years ago I penetrated into economics, quite broadly, and deeply, but since 1) a career as a professional economist, or any professional, did not work out 2) I did not have the impression that I could reach the innermost invisible core of the entire discipline right then 3) other things came to my mind, it went off my radar, so maybe I should brush up and move on now. Maybe now some things come to my mind about economics and how it is situated, and mirrored, within the Welträtsel. That will feel good.

They say economics is a dismal science but this is due to its nature which is about predicting presumably rational behaviour, or events happening along a rational trajectory, within a complex environment. Predicting unfolding of rationality is (more or less) a complicated problem i.e. it is difficult to solve but it can be solved and a more or less definitive, finite solution can be given. A complex problem, by contrast, can never definitely be solved and is infinite, it can only be handled by trying to take everything possible into account and to be ever open to accept the seemingly impossible and to see everything as moving objects and to be quick to readjust. To tackle the complicated is a matter of a formalised language, but the complex probably can never be translated into a formalised system, and the ability to handle it will more or less remain an artistry than calculus (see e.g. Dietrich Dörner´s „The Logic of Failure: Recognizing And Avoiding Error In Complex Situations“). That interplay of complicated problems situated in a complex context makes economics an actually very difficult science which actually needs to be learned. It cannot be easily understood per se although, when you are somehow intelligent, it seems to be this way, creating and maintaining an illusion (which is resemblant to that what in psychology is called the Dunning-Kruger effect). Much within it cannot be drawn from logical conclusion or fluid intelligence and much of it is counterintuitive, lessons have to be drawn from practical experience and from history, i.e. as an economist you also need to have crystallized intelligence, through accumulation.

blackmetalgirl10

Economists are, practically, fond of calculus, and the critics of the (mainstream) economist branch mock that they are trying to do a kind of physics and put upon a physicist´s approach upon that which is actually the social realm, which can, therefore, „never work out“. That is, then, the ignorance of the crititics of economics which also never works out and usually comes in with the same, or even more pronounced, arrogance they – rightfully – attribute to the branch of mainstream economists. In an act which is actually an act of despair mainstream economists try to come to terms with an imperfect world by modelling a perfect world in which, then, law of „physics“ would apply. Herein they can offer perfect solutions. But in reality you always have imperfect situations and settings so that you practically would have to model second-best options. And it is very difficult, if not – ever – impossible to model second-best options. Much of the dismal character of economics can be attributed to that. In another light, as is noted in the article, economists often seem to be more concerned about the internal consistency of their approaches than of the external consistency and such „mentalities“ create path-dependencies along which problems generally are seen and tried to be tackled.

A practical dismal aspect, given the capability of the human intellect, is that in order to understand economics you have to get familiar with all schools of economic thought since they all contain truths, as well as errors. And when transforming those doctrines into economic policy it is, in addition to that, situational of what may practically be a truth or an error, respectively a right or a wrong approach, which is why policy makers should rather look for an appropriate approach which should be open to some incrementalism. That is to a good deal even beyond the capability of the more extraordinary minds. Keynes said that an ideal economist is so rare because she would have to combine such multiple and diverse intelligence traits that they seldom meet inside one person.

Keynes himself proclaimed that class struggle would find him on the side „of the educated bourgeoisie“ which reflects that economics is to a very high, actually abnormal, degree an ideological battleground, reflecting, of course, also the difference of interests within the social realm. In order to understand economics you not only have to be familiar with all economic schools of thought and their rights and their wrongs, but you have to try to sort this all out free of ideologically constrained epistemology. That is also difficult for humans. The most comprehensive and maybe greatest single economist, Karl Marx, was an ideological fanatic (not without reason, however). Therefore Marx was far less intellectually productive in the second half of his life where he presumably ruminated whether his architecture might not be too narrow or maybe wrong at all, without, however, being ready to draw any conclusions from those ruminations.

blackmetalgirl5

(After writing the voluminous Grundrisse der Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie in only some months because he was expecting a major crisis of capitalism impending with it more or less signifying the great kataklysm of capitalism per se, and then seeing that an economic downturn actually came but, in reality, rather passed by like a cloud than confirming his intellectual sentiments, Marx became to be much less productive as a thinker. He wrote on Capital, to not ever complete it, although the main ideas for Capital had already been outlined in the Grundrisse. He contemplated whether, for instance, not class struggles but rivalries between nations could be the prime mover of history. In general Marx had important and illuminous insights which will be here to stay forever and he enriched our understanding of multiple things, enabled a more complex understanding, but actually never got the essence of anything right, neither of capitalism, nor economics in general, nor of society, of man, of religion, of ideology, of history; and the sophistical concept of the commodity fetisch he replaced with an unrecognized „capital fetish“ bewildering the anticapitalists. (Marx´ and Marxism´s system of thought is constantly oscillating between an open, dialectical one and a closed, finite, doctrinarian one, reflecting that as an internal inconsistency of Marx himself.) For instance I guess that if there is any prime mover of history it will be technological progress, but we don´t know how technological progress translates into the making of distinct social realms and what form class struggle or relations between nations will take. I will write a note about Marx and Marxism and, I guess, a second note about the concept of class society and class struggle. To outline the general argument of the second one: Marx proposed a dialectics, actually some kind of hydraulics in the evolution of society, along the line of class struggle. You have the development of the productive forces, creating a mode of production, and within the mode of production you have the members of classes acting as agents of the reproduction and finally the transformation of the system, resembling actually a structural functionalism with internal dialectics which will fuck everything up (i.e. a meta-structural functionalism or so). Seeing that such a perspective is not globally appropriate Marx then spoke of an Asian mode of production which obiously does not work along those lines (so easily). Wittfogel made an attempt how to tackle the problem of the Asian mode of production and that of the evolvement of societies in general, Jared Diamond is a famous example of a holisitic approach upon the development of societies and economic systems in our time #alwaysremember #neverforget. The concept of class society however seems to imply that classes are a reflection of something that is inherently productive. But when you look at many societies social stratification does not seem to be insanely dialectically productive with the ruling class or the elite being more or less only extractive based on social relations which are clientilistic, and they are in a deadlock for centuries or maybe forever; see e.g. Acemoglu/Robinson´s „Why Nations Fail“.)

 

I have read hundreds of books, papers, essays on economics, international political economy, globalisation studies, economic history, and development economics. For random reasons Porter´s „Competetive Advantage of Nations“ comes to my mind at the moment. It contains studies what (industrial) strategies have made several, and distinct, nations economically successful. It is somehow strange that the question about the benefits or fallacies of infant industry protection is hardly ever properly adressed in modern day economics and its textbooks, where infant industry protection is disfavored although successful Western and Asian nations relied on it, whereas, granted, in other nations it was a failure (or something resemblant to a failure). Well, the secret to successful infant industry protection lies in protecting the national infant industry from competition from the world market but not on the domestic market. Because of competition on the domestic market infant industries in successful nations increased their productivity and became therefore fit for competition on a global scale, whereas in Latin American or African countries infant industries were also protected from competition on the domestic market and therefore did not get very far. That is a key message of Porter´s book. I remember Keynes´ „General Theory“ to be badly written and not easily accessible. Hyman Minsky somehow always says the same. The time when I was obsessed about economics was the time when Kindleberger died. Kindleberger died in 2003 and I studied economics for my doctoral thesis which I completed in 2004. In 2005 I wrote a postgraduate thesis „Problems and Perspectives in Contemporary World Order“ where I tried to discuss all international problems of our time on 50 pages, and on p. 27 it says: „Nevertheless, one should avoid too optimistic thinking concerning the unlikeliness of serious economic trouble the USA might slip into at almost any point of time. Too many are the sins of carelessness within the American economy: saving rates are low, the sectors of the „old economy“ are relatively unproductive and at the real estate market a major bubble could burst.“ (I was familiar with such things because they have been frequently reported in, for instance, The Economist magazine but no one, apart from a few like Robert Brenner, took the warning signs serious enough, including me.) After having written the thesis I found it superficial, neglected it, became depressed about it, but of course my supervisors also never really understood what an omega mind I carry, respectively did not care. I also did not understand that I carry the omega mind back then since having the omega mind means permanently falling into the abyss and being somehow devoid of orientation as well as ususally operating at such a high level of abstraction that what the omega mind ejects then is in danger of being mistaken as „practically“ useless. The omega mind is actually not easy to understand, due to its complexity. People like me are seen as „intelligent, but strange“, and therefore neglected. But we are not strange. We are hypernormal. This is not very well understood about us. However it is true our proper place are not the institutions but is in the twilight zone. Jenseits des Gradienten. The omega mind is not academic and does not fit into disciplines, is also not interdisciplinary, nor transdisciplinary, nor a-disciplinary and is also not interested in doing complexity studies, it tries to establish a productive mimesis of the all seeing eye. And communication is impaired between the omega mind and other minds. Yet we will shoot back. Behold.

 

 A good book about a critical assessment of economics is the one by Amitai Etzioni whose title I cannot remember and cannot find now on the internet.

I have, however, never read Adam Smith. #theroadahead

I have bought an old textbook about industrial economics at a cheap price at the university some years ago but still not have read it. Same thing goes for the big bad book by Kahnemann. I have, however, read Thaler and Sunstein´s book „Nudge“ about behavioural economics.

This week it came to my mind I also want to write a note about the „Dostojevski Idiot and the incompleteness theorem within human morals“. As I have mentioned the concept of mimesis I came to remember that I also want to finally read sociologist Gabriel de Tarde who based his grasp on society on a concept of mimesis. He is not very well known but was one or the other time mentioned by Deleuze and Guattari; at his time he was overshadowed by Durkheim as well as modern French sociology is overshadowed by Bourdieu. I have read some Bourdieu, but no Durkheim so far.

 

My somehow sincere penetration into economics has resulted in that I find myself to have practically nothing to say about economics respectively about economic affairs. That is too difficult. I would need to study a lot about every case until I feel ready to say something about it. Everyone on Facebook for instance said something about Greece, notably the referendum triggered by Tsipras a while ago. Yet in the case of Greece it was difficult to see through the fog and to get what information presented by different channels even was correct and reliable, and because 1) I was not responsible for the situation 2) I cannot do anything about the situation I did not engage a lot about the Greek case; but I checked out that Leela Papadioti from Greece who in the World Genius Directory is listed with a 180 IQ issued a statement at the day before the referendum in which she very thoughtful, non-triumphant, trying to be as objective and unideological as deemed possible to her made an assessment (in favor of Tsipras), admitting that the situation is troubling and confusing; whereas people with IQs much lower than that all seemed to know so well what should have been done, in their usual demeanor to make Greece, and everything else, a toy with which they play in their ideologically motivated games. – With an eminent IQ score one should become eminently rational, at very high IQ levels hyper-rationality should come into being. That means an ever reflexive or meta-rationality and being unpersonal yet intellectually highly involved and emotionally sympathetic in assessments, like e.g. Einstein or Wittgenstein exercised. Viewed from the outside, hyper-rationality appears like overthinking, which is sometimes ridiculed by people as well as by overthinkers themselves. But without overthinking nothing would have ever come into being at all and we would still live in the stone age, not discussing the Greek case. Thinking IS overthinking. As anyone can, within certain ranges, be rational, everyone can be hyper-rational. Be like Leela. I also asked Evangelos Katsioulis, a Greek who probably has the highest IQ in the world (maybe around 200), about his assessment of the referendum, but he did not reply.
Book review: Michel De Vroey and the problems of macroeconomics
„The master-economist must possess a rare combination of gifts …. He must be mathematician, historian, statesman, philosopher—in some degree. He must understand symbols and speak in words. He must contemplate the particular, in terms of the general, and touch abstract and concrete in the same flight of thought. He must study the present in the light of the past for the purposes of the future. No part of man’s nature or his institutions must be entirely outside his regard. He must be purposeful and disinterested in a simultaneous mood, as aloof and incorruptible as an artist, yet sometimes as near to earth as a politician.“ – John Maynard Keynes
                                    Yellen Challenges Economists Amid Elusive Great Recovery

Muhammad Ali

Genius is not primarily a matter of IQ but of personality. Pop stars like John Lennon, Jim Morrison, Prince (maybe also Kayne West pseudolol) had such a personality and as well, as far as I can see, Muhammad Ali. With a higher IQ (or maybe just different mindset) they could have been major philosophers, „serious“ artists or great political activists (like Martin Luther King who was, so to say, an older brother of Muhammad Ali), within their domain they incorporated such qualities and were (mirror images of) universal man. It happens when a genuine talent (or intelligence) is amplified by an extreme, idiosyncratic, „schizotypal“ agility and versatility which made Ali able to knock out his opponents as well as pretentious interview partners with astonishing facility and unforseeable moves. He was idealistic but not fanatic, hard-nosed but amicable, autonomous, fearless, and spiritual. I remember someone said that anyone who had a conversation with Ali felt greatly touched and uplifted, and that is the surest of all the different signs of genius. Genius spiritualises everything, says Dali, and as Ali is now detached from body and sickness he has undergone the final transformation into a pure spirit, guarding and guiding us from above, from the elements, forever.

Philip Hautmann „This life is not real. I conquered the world and it did not bring me satisfaction. God gave me this illness to remind me that I’m not number one, He is.“ – Muhammad Ali r.a.

Brat Moj

Brother of mine Do you feel the courage raised by night For the eternal struggle For the beauty of the world? Brother of mine Rekindle the flame in every man Let’s be strong as warriors, my brother In the sacred mystery We are the omen, we are the prophecy We are the loud laughter of life The flame is the hunger The hunger that drives But does not consume us Brother of mine Open your eyes And rise with us To the new light We are of God; he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us.Hereby know we the spirit of truth, the spirit of lies, and the spirit of error