Bio ~ engineering.

My first major was Chemical Engineering at USC before a stint in their East Asian Languages and Cultures Department.*  After a sabbatical for a number of years, the result was a BA in Liberal Studies at the University of Washington.

[anachronistic writing]**
*removing the impression that I am at all responsible for the hyperlink
** the following are notes in progress akin to side notes on a page being read

NOTES:
Madhyamaka     /     Dialetheist       crazy ~  unmattaka
M-theory of D {?}
Paraconsistent Logic
Paradox ~ ironic ~ rhetorical device
Conceptualization ~/~ falsifies

Nietzsche: tT~ER (eternal recurrence)
Radical Contextualist Semantics ~requires meaning
Statement ~\~ truthmaker (not required)

=====================   segue   ==========
W-Theory  ~ Milo Wolff
Logical Positivism   Fusion v. Confluence
Defluence is the struggle[!]
=====================   theory?==========
LEVEL TWO NOTES:
W for Wolff AND Wave
Not to mention paradox of M.
Model / Madhyamaka / meaning?
D for Dialetheist, Dimensions and Design
Even rougher notes:
Paraconsistent Wittgenstein
Popper's poker.
=============
Then there is Methane[!]
Big T, and small t: Truth and Tetrahedron
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

* asterisk info only added 5-2-16
Pardon my style.

Crooked Timber

Select Lumber and taking Platonic Form*.

*F/Wittgenstein's Poker, P/House of Cards :

Ctrl F Rules[!]

[Bent Pearl ? ]

Coin-age of the day.

Veriabling.

Origin*: Prior coin-age on our coin age. 
Pre-coin-age:  prior posts that coin new words, although not necessarily sovereigns***

Structural Speculation

* already evolved from variabling to veriabling, not to emphasize bling. 
Not to be confused or separated from** coin age, or should I Say knot.
** line is reference to labels, inserted links are geometricks
*** timing is everything?

Note:  Everything may be a pun on the word or dimention, but it is the last inserted link at this time.  It spins off of the sovereigns reference and humorism(or Lincoln Logs) where I will refrain from more quantum leaps[!]  Now to proceed from the double asterisked line's determinant[?] ... regarding the knot Say: 
12/12  Power Point on Philosophy of Science and Economics: Positivism, Popper, and After

11/12 Fideism: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

10/12 PDF Russell On Denoting.

9/12 Wittgenstein's Poker Lost and Found

8/12 Jiggery Pokery

7/12 Philosophy Stories

#6 See (FP below) 4moolah

5/12 Realmiffications ?

4/12 (b.s.) ofor

3. relavent

2. segweigh

1. veriabling 

FP[!]) insert #6 a. Pre-Pan FRY. b. Clinton(Bill) is full of B.S.

[!] exception to the rule? i.e. anachronical links
[?] matrix pun dropped

[Closed Cap shun ? ] (FP1)

Obama 2012

The appropriate follow up for Economics 2011
Netting it big with Bridge Poker.

Week old Last Word: It is not Republican checkers against Obama and N-dimensional chess, it is whatever you call the Republican bored games against Obama*** and his Bridge Poker*. That is my take, not Lawernce O'Donnell's.

[My guess is that whatever is voted on will be politically beneficial**, win or lose.]

*more than just the table games
** for Democrats
*** not much of a chess player myself, I think it is a bad metaphor. A bit more of a poker player and less of a bridge player, I did not know there was actually the game of Bridge Poker. But negotiations are one thing and politics is more the thing, so a bit of Go Fish might be thrown in. And if wishes were fishes we'd be fed up.
[Belated Happy Birthday to MSNBC!]

[Later in the day, apparently Speaker Boehner bails out or has taken the bait: Remarks by the President:

So they will come down here at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow. I expect them to have an answer in terms of how they intend to get this thing done over the course of the next week. The American people expect action. I continue to believe that a package that is balanced and actually has serious debt and deficit reduction is the right way to go. And the American people I think are fed up with political posturing and an inability for politicians to take responsible action as opposed to dodge their responsibilities.

[Earlier Obama Town Hall]

[7-24-11: The Deadliest Catch]

Buy In?

[[UPDATE 12-23-09:
Salon v. Huffington*
Throwing in the towel of bipartisanship and/or getting it together?
Who needs Republicans when the Democrats have two wings?
(On the other hand: High Stakes Poker [**] anyone?)

* Wonk Room actually, but the sentiment counts and change happens. ]]
[**Thanks to Thom Hartmann ]

[Resume original post]
The Senate Hurdle? The Federal Option.
[OurFuture.org]

Optimistic Sense?
Real Mythication
UPDATES
Saving the spot *
Get 'er done
Hiatus of Thought
Rubric's Cube...
[12-22-09: Think Progress Hopenhagen, (FT, WaPo, NYTimes) OurFuture.org Bumbling Economy?]

More than guts.

That could be the theme of the Democratic ticket. It is also much more than country first. There are many countries that put country first. But are we not better than many countries? And what does this say to all those corporations that think they are people, with rights not responsibilities? Will they be second?

But I digress, do we want a Maverick who is more than a gambler? Poker or any table game may be about guts and calculations as I read more of the LA Times embedded piece. "Voting History" could be titled picking history, but there is more to unembed there.

Change vs. Experience *
More than just words,
and more than about history.

The media is at the table again or maybe working under it. The above two links keep coming to mind every time someone says what a surprise Palin is**. It seems this is more about ping pong than chess, but life is more than a ball.

* cut from link
** in the commentary/news world that is

[More than media
More than news
More than a concern.
More than Entertainment.
More than Patriotic.]

An Economy Runs Through It.

The last thread, that is.
I don't recall seeing the movie about the river,
was it about trickle-down?

This is, though.
Why You Want a Progressive to Be Running the Economy
The trickle-down, not the river.

On the other hand.
This is about the power of planning.
Ten Things You Should Know About China

The former is a good primer on the politics of economics, while the latter may be a more advanced course on freedoms and economic powers, not to mention foreign policy.

[Update- Because I just did not want to start another post- Going after National Security(nfr* - preemptively I will say that the Republican Rove machine seems to attack on the strength of their opponents, National Security and the Economy. But the reality is that they are attacking on their own weaknesses. Remember The Twin Towers? Remember the Deficit? And Foreign Affairs? Remember Saddam Hussein, the Bin Ladens, and other royal families?) From Doom and Gloom to Fear and Smear, is that a world we can believe in? OK, this is not too tightly linked to McCain, but is he really too tightly wrapped as the Maverick? Not to mention is the word "trump" coming up too much? Have we gone from poker to pinochle? ]

Two Evils? Or flippin flop?

[Pre-Emptive]* Comments on Business and Voting
In this case {Pre-Emptive} , meaning after barely a glance at the articles but reading their briefs in my daily TruthOut .

Two Reports Assail State Department Role on Iraq Security
By Eric Schmitt and David Rohde The New York Times

GOP Team Revives Electoral Vote Initiative
By Dan Morain and Joe Mathews
The Los Angeles Times

In the first matter of the first MBA prez I took a bit longer {of a glance at a} tangent.
And reached a familiar metaphor {embedded there} : Poker. And {we can} conclude that he does not like to play the hand he is dealt and he is the dealer.

In the second matter, Electoral College aside, it seems a matter of black and white. In this case whether Californians want their candidate to be president or to dilute their vote. It is admirable that some states have proportional representation but when it is applied to a larger state and not to all states, it seems to defy some reasoning, much as voting for a third candidate on a lesser of two evils {theory}.

It should be clear that the only thing that should be black and white is ones vote. And the way the vote should work is that the winner is the one that gets the most votes. If a third candidate gets some, it should not be hard to see that the greater of two evils results.

* normally I reserve brackets for edited changes at the bottom, in this case this will mean this will be veering from that policy, and upgrade this post other than than housekeeping with {brackets}s.

What Rumsfeld probably never said:

You may never know everything that the enemy knows, but they can easily know that you are not saying what they know and you say you know.

They also may know that your friends know that you are not saying what they know and you said they knew.

Anyway on a related matter:

Not knowing what one means nor saying what one means, it is similar to a one handed poker game or blind bluff.

Up The Filter

Cheney almost got in real trouble when he suggested that he had more intelligence than the 9-11 commission, meaning he must have withheld something. However now I can’t blame him, because even I had more evidence than the 9-11 commission at least mentioned in their report.

Much of it is noted in http://www.tompaine.com/articles/sins_of_commission.php Sins of Commission. I’ve only read up to flaw four in it.

Summary: more information was available than was considered by intelligence or the committee.
I'm sure some of it may yank some chains, but it is why our enemies ended up yanking ours.
What was supposed to empower a bluff, played into their hand. A poker term that I saw through earlier in this analysis.

NEW RESOLUTIONS?
On the constitutionality of the Iraq Resolution by congress, there has been a lawsuit brought by Congressman McDermott and others, which has been dismissed. Further action is seen in HJR 20 and SR 32. These seek to return war powers to congress. The ambiguity mentioned below can also be seen in UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Unanimity was admired in its passage. However, taking action apparently was not seen by many of those voting to be automatic. Therefore it is only more imperative that the congressional authority be reconsidered. In fact victory may be declared in retracting it, seeing that progress is being made and work being done to continue pressure and unanimity.

The Joker reference may be disrespectful but fits the analogy so well as to the power the president already has in terms of diplomacy and ambiguity, and in fact demonstrates similar tactics by the administration, which I do not admire. Nevertheless, it is not appropriate to dis-avail myself of literary means, when others disregard legal means.

[February 25, 2003] To those concerned.
Here is my take on it, and I wonder how it fits. The ambiguity of the congressional resolution seems to be the problem. Ambiguity has its place maybe in diplomacy, but not in dealings with our own processes. Well maybe in the dealings it has a place but finally the law needs to be clarified. This does not seem to get anywhere, I was trying to get there logically. And without clarity I may have demonstrated that logic will get nowhere.

Anyway, it seems that Congress dealt the President a wildcard when there is already a Joker there. I don’t think I could put it any better, but may need to explain. The President is responsible for diplomacy and the Congress for war and finance. The Congress gave the President a resolution for his game of brinkmanship, basically poker. Therefore it was intentionally ambiguous to play the game of bluff. Now Congress must remove the wildcard or Joker from the deck! A clear resolution or impeachment may be needed. [Reference here is to include all the legal means available to resolve issues between branches of the government, from judicial review to punitive measures.] Unfortunately, the latter faces those who want to play out the game. Unfortunately the game is nothing new but more of the same. The ambiguous resolution acquiesces to a policy of poker and preemption.

Maybe further explanation is needed. Preemption may already be in the hands of a President in terms of actual defense. All one needs, is the guts to act with reason. But to put in the hands as foreign policy, the tool of war, not to mention finance, is wrong.

[Instamessage to talk-show host (TSH) sounds like an analysis.]

Dear TSH- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently said that Iraq was not being cooperative enough since the inspections had not found anything not on the list they provided. So therefore it must be reasonable that Saddam may have saved some of these items to address that nonsense, to prove they are being cooperative. It seems that the administration is proposing bomb if you do, bomb if you don’t arguments, so it doesn’t really matter how Saddam behaves. Now the administration says they have yet to present an argument?

(Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Credit if you do, credit if you don’t. )

Dear TSH- The President does deserve some credit if he has changed his positions, but so can his critics take credit for his changes. Unfortunately we will not be certain until after and if this is resolved, and even then the argument will not necessarily be clear, since we are having an argument and they claim not to be presenting an argument now. If we cannot be clear on what he is saying, how can we be clear on what he is doing, to give anyone credit?

Dear TSH- I like and have even proposed quite some time ago the "Wacko Theory" you have arrived at and it is similar to the poker game theory of bluffing. Indeed it may be our only hope if it works. Unfortunately this seems to scare our own citizens and our friends and allies more than other it does other wackos. In fact it would possible lead wackos to be more wacko and indeed see the value in not following agreements that we in fact have dropped.

Another thing is that this depends on the idea that these opponents are not as wacko as one might think.

It also poses risk since we do not know if this type of thinking will be applied in other issues. The signs are that similar tactics (vilifying while obfuscating) are being used on domestic as well as other foreign policy issues. These tactics if unclear have frightening consequences not only for world peace but even our own freedoms. If having a wacko president is justified, then there could be no argument against having a different (or our) wacko for president. We would equally be able to blame critics and opponents for getting in the way of our type of wacko.

Post-Pyth?

Logical Positivism?
Chomsky's Poker? 



source of link needed
arrow of time?














Inspiration Hegel: 
L P above?  Vienna Circle another D?
The following are unread yet representative sources
L P, ironically LW, Pop/per*, Chomsky

(ironically or logically? v.c.? )
A. B. C. D?

Chomsky? Heirarchy? Parsing? Sch^ ?

Chomsky may be the point [!]
x, y, z ?
OW !



[Note: Facetious* Time Stamp 2014]




* [!] (~)
12-2-14
 War on Hillary[!] A. The Un-Revolved(~) Thread  B. AsIMovian Principles. C. (fp2)

OW

update to ?
============================

O W [!]

Epicyclic Popperism, Vital Usefulness(under con(tent)), Present and Future of Philosphy(under hiker) // Wittgenstein's Poker: Ctrl ePH & T R Y ! ... O W / o w / ? ! ? Ctr F B ? / !

kNot 2 Pho(R)sF8, butt ... ? ! ...  PhD ? ?

OW scale this ? ?

pH Scale

OK, not to bust a Popperism, but the leap here was* in search of "Litmus Test Colors"!

*knot ?2? pan or pre-FRY ! ? !
  [Note: Facetious Time Stamp 2014]