Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Bitcoin, in itself and as a paradigm for other crypto-currencies on the same model, is a powerful alternative to state-controlled monetary systems. Politicians have refused over decades to harden money, in essence because they are in bed with the central bankers who control the fiat system. In this circumstance, markets are seeking a work-around, a way of hardening their own currencies, and that is what bitcoin means as a historical development. The free range non-proprietray nature of the system is a large part of its appeal. Thus, the news that JP Morgan is trying to put up fences in this very range is distressing. Yet Ian Allison reported on exactly that back in August.  http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/barbarians-gate-jp-morgan-bitcoin-driven-payment-revolution-1460765

Strange movie, no suspense. Of course she's going to defeat the Taiwanese drug running bad guys. You never have any doubt. Looks of fancy symbolism. No big whoop.

HUNDRED DAYS (2014) by Nick Lloyd. The book is a discussion of the final campaign of the first world war, the months that brought a surprisingly quick end to the mud-drenched trench warfare standstill that had defined the western front for years. There are a lot of reasons why the war ended when it did. One reason: German troops were famished. The blockade was effective -- civilians of course were suffering most but Germany had lost the ability even to keep its troops decently fed. Another reason -- the leadership at the top demanded rigidity in military tactics and strategy even when it was getting sound advice that flexibility was the urgent necessity of the day. And that is the gist of the quote I want to share. Here it is. In the summer of 1918, "Crown Prince Wilhelm reported to [high command] that the front should be immediately withdrawn to the so-called Antwerp-Meuse position, which lay far behind the Hindenburg Line. This would give ... troops a breathing space, ...

"Drug development based on herbal cannabinoids has been slow in the U.S. largely because of the scheduling issue and reluctance of the National Institute on Drug Abuse to approve research studies. A great deal of the current dispensary-based knowledge about the uses and efficacies of various strains has been the product of popular trial and error, a potentially dangerous and irreproducible way to approach science." That's a quote from Anne Wallace, writing in MJ Investor News. I'll let you consider the implications without further ado.

I recently engaged in a stimulating exchange with an Objectivist on twitter. I'll put it together here in a way one can't do in twitter's concision-is-everything format. He picked the fight. There were too few Jamesians with whom to argue, so he found me, and made the sweeping, but characteristically O-ist, declaration that James' pragmatism abandoned "principles" for "efficiency." Of course I responded that this was a canard. After some back-and-forth we got to the issue of what is a tautology and whether it is a bad thing. When O-ists are pressed on this point, they tend to take the absurd position that every true statement is a tautology. Simply because every true statement says of something that it is, what it is. The reason this is absurd:  it squashes together "sense" and "reference." The proper name "Samuel Clemens" and the pen name "Mark Twain" refer to the same man, the same biological orga...

Now people seem to be working to figure out the difference between Caitlyn Jenner and Rachel Dolezal.  Caitlyn felt like a woman trapped in a man's body, and is now "out" as a woman, with the help of surgery, drugs, and a world-famous photographer. Rachel appears to have "felt" black, estranged from her Causasian family, and trapped in the body you see in this photo -- the carrot-haired and quite light-skinned woman in the center of the back row. Are the two cases similar or different in terms of what judgment (if any) rational observers can make about them? If they are different, is either of them to be judged to have done anything dishonest or even imprudent? Well, let me not weigh in on such matters. I argue about no one's identity except my own -- and not that either, if I can help it. I simply observe that the animated sitcom SOUTH PARK covered this ground long before it was news. The character Kyle Br...

Linguists sometimes use the term "indexical" for a type of word or sign. If I understand the point, a word is "indexical" if it presupposes some aspect of the situation in which it is employed. "Here" is indexical. So, for that matter, is "there." Each presupposes that the speaker is located at a particular place, and that the listener has some idea what that place is.  You ask a friend over the phone, "Do you know where my folder is?" Your friend replies, "Yes, you left it over here." In that case, the speech situation includes the fact that both he and I know that I was at his place the previous night, and I presume (he knows that I will presume) that he is speaking to me now from that home. So, because I understand the indexical use of the term, I know where my folder is. Likewise "now" is indexical. If I record the phrase "I am having trouble breathing now" and someone plays back that recording th...