Monday, October 20, 2014

Schopenhauer: Genius? "eminently clear consciousness of things.. pierce the darkness & dullness of ordinary human"

everybody thinks they are smart... most people are not...


A genius is a man in whose mind the world is presented as an object is presented in a mirror, but with a degree more of clearness and a greater distinction of outline than is attained by ordinary people. It is from him that humanity may look for most instruction; for the deepest insight into the most important matters is to be acquired, not by an observant attention to detail, but by a close study of things as a whole. And if his mind reaches maturity, the instruction he gives will be conveyed now in one form, now in another. Thus genius may be defined as an eminently clear consciousness of things in general, and therefore, also of that which is opposed to them, namely, one’s own self....

the light which he sheds about him may pierce the darkness and dullness of ordinary human consciousness and there produce some good effect

Inequality: Vatican, Reel Sistine for masses v Live for €5,000


he Vatican has not divulged how much it will earn from the event, but the five-day tour of Italy's capital, arranged by the Porsche Travel Club, costs up to €5,000 a head,

Sunday, October 19, 2014

Stagnation: NY'r v JayZ, Beethoven "oppress his successors from the grave" v Quiz, JayZ or TS Eliot


 As a teen-ager, I contemplated becoming a composer; attending a concert at Symphony Hall, in Boston, I remember seeing, with wonder and dismay, the single name “beethoven” emblazoned on the proscenium arch. “Don’t bother,” it seemed to say.advertisementFor this conundrum—an artist almost too great for the good of his art—Beethoven himself bears little responsibility. There is no sign that he intended to oppress his successors from the grave.

Telegraph: Can you tell the difference between rap and TS Eliot?

Startup classes: Sand Hill v Math star, startup classes v need "talent. the feeling of it"

Women in Mathematics:

I did finally get my master's degree in physics.  But by then I knew that I didn't have the talent for physics.  I scraped through, but I didn't have the feeling of it.  Again, I felt like they could tell me anything.  I didn't understand what the ground rules were.

and intuition.

Yes, you need some kind of an intuition, and I didn't have it.  The electronics laboratory involved a very precise measure of truth.  I liked that.  But when I got to problems in mechanics, I just didn't understand what you could ignore and what you had to accept as given.  There always seemed to be approximations.  But I never knew which ones were acceptable, and the whole thing was hazy.

Dealer $: F&S, "closemouthed. theory may be that the less [buyers] know about the inner workings of the business the better"

Field & Stream Jan 1985

auto parts business is big, diverse, and tends to be closemouthed, the latter probably because it is a license to print money.  Consumers, of course, pick up the tab, and the theory may be that the less they know about the inner workings of the business the better.

PGraham: Want investor $? "the foundation of convincing investors is to seem formidable"

But if they only seem formidable...    you can make money revealing their impotence...


the foundation of convincing investors is to seem formidable, and since this isn't a word most people use in conversation much, I should explain what it means. A formidable person is one who seems like they'll get what they want, regardless of whatever obstacles are in the way. Formidable is close to confident, except that someone could be confident and mistaken. Formidable is roughly justifiably confident.

There are a handful of people who are really good at seeming formidable—some because they actually are very formidable and just let it show, and others because they are more or less con artists. [3] But most founders, including many who will go on to start very successful companies, are not that good at seeming formidable the first time they try fundraising. What should they do? [4]

What they should not do is try to imitate the swagger of more experienced founders. Investors are not always that good at judging technology, but they're good at judging confidence. If you try to act like something you're not, you'll just end up in an uncanny valley. You'll depart from sincere, but never arrive at convincing.

Innovation: Prospect, Poe? "self-indulgent, vulgar, borderline insane.... claim to greatness. fertility as innovator"


Self-indulgent, vulgar, borderline insane—Edgar Allan Poe was the most influential American author of the 19th century...  One might go so far as to say that Poe is the worst writer ever to have had any claim to greatness.
Some of that claim rests in his sheer fertility as an innovator. He is rightly credited with having invented the modern detective story, with his tales of the reclusive poet-scientist-genius C Auguste Dupin, hero of “The Purloined Letter,” “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” and “The Mystery of Marie RogĂȘt.” Dupin is pretty obviously Poe’s wish-fulfilment version of himself; he is also a prototype of the great detective, Sherlock Holmes. In the early pages of A Study in Scarlet Holmes is keen to distance himself from his predecessor. Watson, impressed for the first of many times by Holmes’s apparent ability to read minds, says: “You remind me of Edgar Allan Poe’s Dupin.” Holmes is dismissive: ¨in my opinion Dupin was a very inferior fellow… He had some analytical genius, no doubt; but he was by no means such a phenomenon as Poe appeared to imagine.”