BE DO HAVE and Jack Hershey vs Objective Reality

?

^^^^^^

Why does the US versus THEM mentality persist between those who favorably view the ramblings of Jack Hershey and others less favorably impressed by him ? I believe its because of two diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive views of the nature of reality.

Hershey expresses his view of reality in his writings here and by reference to outside works. For example , he favorably recommends a movie titled "What the Bleep Do We Know ?".



Jack Garner
Democrat and Chronicle

(10/8/2004) -- Read this to see whether you're in the target audience for the new cult-hit documentary What the Bleep Do We Know!?

"There's a great mystery called the mystery of the direction of time," says one of the film's talking-head authorities. "It's a puzzle in the fundamental laws of physics why we should be able to remember the past but not have the same access to the future. Or that by acting now we control the future, but not the past."

Duh. The future hasn't happened yet, you twit.

Yet the so-called authority continues that such things "are so basic ... not to think about them is to be three-quarters dead." If that's the case, start shoveling the dirt on me now. I got better things to worry about.

Then there's another authority who assures us, "If you believe with every fiber of your body that you can walk on water, well, of course you can." Right. Of course. Or is that a blub-blub-blub that I hear?

What the Bleep Do We Know!? is New Age hooey disguised as a scientific documentary about quantum physics, which is described as the science of possibilities.

Certainly, in its broadest sense, the film is right that there are myriad untapped mysteries in the human mind and body, and it's intriguing to speculate about them. And, yes, the film spotlights some interesting material, particularly a middle section about the body's chemical responses to emotions and how they trigger attitudes and behaviors. But to get that five minutes of insight, filmgoers have to patiently wade through many more minutes of gobbledygook.

Granted, What the Bleep features quite an array of professors, Ph.D.s, authors and teachers among its talking heads, and some are very impressive. However, credibility goes bye-bye when we get to JZ Knight, a woman who supposedly "channels" a mystic named Ramtha. If she'd just bend a spoon or pull a bunny out of a hat, we could all go home.

To try to make sense of its scattergun science and pseudo-science, filmmakers William Arntz, Betsy Chasse and Mark Vicente present a fictional character named Amanda (Marlee Matlin), who goes on a vague odyssey into her consciousness, trying to understand her own behavior and her place in the universe. There's not a plot, per se; Amanda is more like an everywoman who becomes a modern-day Alice, jumping down a rabbit hole.

Despite my strong skepticism, I realize some filmgoers are passionate about Bleep; it's become a cult hit, particularly on the West Coast.

However, if I'm going to recommend a documentary about physics, it'd be A Brief History of Time, a superb Errol Morris film from 1993, in which famed physicist Stephen Hawking discusses his ideas on the origins of the universe and its possible future. If I'm going to leap down a rabbit hole, I'd rather have Morris and Hawking as my guides.
More...


In Hershey's worldview there is no objective reality, just the one created by the individual. In this worldview backtesting is useless because it was created by someone else and hence from their universe and has no bearing on one's own universe. Likewise Hershey can give no rules to trading or even show his trading because he believes any results and any methods are unique to the individual. At best he discusses transference which is a sort of reality seeding from which an individual may hope to sprout his own similar universe. Hershey sums up this worldview as BE DO HAVE.
The opposite worldview is that objective reality exists.Usually those holding this worldview believe that reality exists regardless of ones own feelings or thoughts about it and that it is a more or less common reality which everyone existing shares. In this worldview, individuals may use the same exact rules in trading and achieve the exact same out come, execution problems notwithstanding. That is why proponents of this view want to see the results obtained by Hershey and often use backtesting. They believe that reality is not affected by their thoughts about it so much as their actual actions within it.

No amount of mystical musings will dissuade an objectivist and no amount of reason will dissuade the mystics. So that leaves the two permanently at odds.
 
That was actually a lot better than I thought it was going to be. Well done.

Note: I only read the first two paragraphs and last line.
 
Quote from ^^^^^^:



No amount of mystical musings will dissuade an objectivist and no amount of reason will dissuade the mystics. So that leaves the two permanently at odds.
More...

I can certainly understand why you might suggest this. I propose though, your assertion is not necessarily true. Actually, exactly as you state it, it is true.

What I'm driving at is the word "reason". If an objectivist is stuck in that pattern of process, you're right, nothing can change. If the objectivisit (or for that matter the non-objectivist) is open to a new experience, then all hell can break loose.

Reason, for most people, boils down to Aristotelian logic. The problem is, Aristotilian logic has been show to be incomplete at best, and often is wrong. This is not my opinion. This is stuff of major mathematical debate. It makes a LOT of very smart people very very unhappy.

In a more practical sense, I can tell you, from first hand experience, there are ways to open up the shut off valve objectivists seem to possess. My purpose is not to convince anyone to change, or that one philosophy is right and another wrong. But to state, with religious dogma, that something isn't possible, is sort of like the kettle calling the pot black.

Be-Do-Have is a philosophy which is extremely useful to many people. THe "other side" used their failure to comprehend or employ that philosophy as reason enough for it being "wrong". Jack didn't invent B-D-H. I've been blessed with being surrounded by some pretty incredibly people. People who have produced significant success in all walks of life. Without exception, each of their paths, once established in the direction they wanted, was a B-D-H path.

Finally, the notion of an objective reality is sort of silly. Physicists do not have defintions for ENERGY, FIELD, FORCE and the like. THis is not just my opinion. THere is much in the literature to show just how circular the thinking is from conventional and dogmatic types. Objectivists depend on the deterministic universe of Newton. Unfortunately, that universe doesn't exist. THere is no determinism. Quantum field theory and non-linear dynamics makes that clear.

I could go on and on. I know you'll just pooh pooh me anyway. But I had a few spare moments and enjoy allowing others to be aware of the other side of your views.

Namaste
 
Quote from bundlemaker:

I can certainly understand why you might suggest this. I propose though, your assertion is not necessarily true. Actually, exactly as you state it, it is true.

What I'm driving at is the word "reason". If an objectivist is stuck in that pattern of process, you're right, nothing can change. If the objectivisit (or for that matter the non-objectivist) is open to a new experience, then all hell can break loose.

Reason, for most people, boils down to Aristotelian logic. The problem is, Aristotilian logic has been show to be incomplete at best, and often is wrong. This is not my opinion. This is stuff of major mathematical debate. It makes a LOT of very smart people very very unhappy.

In a more practical sense, I can tell you, from first hand experience, there are ways to open up the shut off valve objectivists seem to possess. My purpose is not to convince anyone to change, or that one philosophy is right and another wrong. But to state, with religious dogma, that something isn't possible, is sort of like the kettle calling the pot black.

Be-Do-Have is a philosophy which is extremely useful to many people. THe "other side" used their failure to comprehend or employ that philosophy as reason enough for it being "wrong". Jack didn't invent B-D-H. I've been blessed with being surrounded by some pretty incredibly people. People who have produced significant success in all walks of life. Without exception, each of their paths, once established in the direction they wanted, was a B-D-H path.

Finally, the notion of an objective reality is sort of silly. Physicists do not have defintions for ENERGY, FIELD, FORCE and the like. THis is not just my opinion. THere is much in the literature to show just how circular the thinking is from conventional and dogmatic types. Objectivists depend on the deterministic universe of Newton. Unfortunately, that universe doesn't exist. THere is no determinism. Quantum field theory and non-linear dynamics makes that clear.

I could go on and on. I know you'll just pooh pooh me anyway. But I had a few spare moments and enjoy allowing others to be aware of the other side of your views.

Namaste
More...

The notion that water responds to your thoughts about it is silly IMHO.
 
Quote from ^^^^^^:

The notion that water responds to your thoughts about it is silly IMHO.
More...

I can understand that. I sufficiently advanced technology appears as magic to most. If you took the time to investigate, study, and apply what is known about electromagnetism, this wouldn't seem silly at all. It only seems silly because it doesn't fit your world view.

A round world seemed silly.

A triangle whose total angles was not equal to 180 degress seemed silly.

The idea of little microscopic creatures once seemed silly.

All of these seem silly for a common reason. The human physiologies inability to measure the phenomena. Just because YOU can't see it or understand it or believe it, doesn't mean you water doesn't respond to your thoughts.

Now, I don't know about water, but would you believe coin flips, for instance. Princeton, yes I said Princeton, has a department dedicated to the study of the connection between the human mind and what we colloquially call matter ( I put it that way because the concpet of matter being a hard, measurable REAL substance is rapidly falling away and being replaced by the notion that matter is really a spherical standing wave). Test after test has PROVED conclusively that the humand mind (or minds) can and do change events with probably outcomes.

Now, you may choose to plug your ears, refuse to believe, and label those who do as mystical weirdo's. That's your right. Most people actually will label it this way. On the other hand, if you're interested in really learning, finding out the way things really are, then it's necessary to be open to new ways of looking at things, and being willing to let go of old beliefs.

An example more down to earth is in order. All physics students, in their sophmore year usually, learn about Maxwells FOUR equations. All electrical engineers learn how to apply those equations in controlled circumstances (ie Ohms law, power/current relationship in a closed circuit, etc). Now, here is the problem. Maxwell NEVER EVER wrote 4 laws. He wrote 20 equations in 20 variables in a mathematical language called Quarternions.

So, somewhere along the line (it's all in recorded history if you know where to look) a group of people took it upon themselves to change what was into what they wanted. And what they wanted became "science". This has turned out to be a big problem, because the science that was left was a paradigm that was incomplete. It left out huge portions of what Maxwell and others intended to be in those equations. DOn't underestimate what I'm telling you here.... the "science" of electromagnetism is at best incomplete, and at worst quite wrong, the way it's currently taught in every university in the world.

That's mind boggling. THis is but one scenario of how dogmatic belief can get you (and an entire world) stuck in a place that isn't so. I could go on on and on with example after example. FOr instnace, now, it's pretty clear that DNA does NOT control our biology. It's also pretty clear that Pasteur got it wrong about germs causing disease. THis aint' so, and it's easy to find out why. The question is, are you interested in finding out why? Or are you too fearful to seek out the truth. Or too lazy. These are harsh words. But why else would you avoid looking at what is, as opposed to what is argued is?

Folks, this is NO different than trading. Why do you suppose so few make it? You can't follow the crowd. History has demonstrated, that when you believe the majority, follow the in-fashion dogma, and refuse to accept what is (in totality, not just what you want to see), then you're by definition part of the masses.
 
You know I like to call BS on a lot of stuff but...

Jack does contribute a hell of a lot and even if most of it nonsense (not saying it truly is) there is at least something to be learned from it.

So appreciate what he is doing even if you disagree. I just don't think someone could be that dedicated to a lie. He obviously has conviction and it is worth listening to a man of conviction even if, in the end, he is wrong.
 
Quote from Bundlemaker

Physicists do not have defintions for ENERGY, FIELD, FORCE and the like. THis is not just my opinion. THere is much in the literature to show just how circular the thinking is from conventional and dogmatic types. Objectivists depend on the deterministic universe of Newton. Unfortunately, that universe doesn't exist. THere is no determinism. Quantum field theory and non-linear dynamics makes that clear.
More...
Well presented...

***********************************

Quote from ^^^^^^:

The notion that water responds to your thoughts about it is silly IMHO.
More...
and what is the price of potatoes...
 
Quote from T280:

He's a pest, I put him right up there with Woody, trying to leave a legacy behind because he's afraid of death and so in love with their method and themselves they have become world class wankers
More...

That may be true but I still would want to hear what he has to say.
 
Why does the US versus THEM mentality persist between those who favorably view the ramblings of Jack Hershey and others less favorably impressed by him ?

There may be some diferences of views in ET and they may be scattered about in each of the many forums of the organized spectrum of forums.

Many philosophical approaches to life and culture and within the financial community exist.

As is pointed out by Larry Harris in "Trading and Exchanges" there are 32 classifications he uses. The stream I fit into is well understood by the financial community. There is no mystery about it and it is cut and dry.

Anyone following these conventions of the financial industry can locate me and describe me in a New York minute.

In terms of psychology and psyiology, I am too old to continue to participate in that arena at this point. However, it is clear that I studied, got licensed and insured in order to participate in the trauma center setting and regularly part of a team. I was required to know how people live and work and to be able to assess them under the worst possible life support conditions. I no longer carry my jump kit when I am out and about and I no longer maintain my malpractise insurance.

My most recent activity was to contribute pathology strategies from more or less an "engineering" point of view as part of a multidicsiplinary team who job it was, was to move forward the cutting edge of better serving the health delivery system.

another member of that team and I are in the process of writing a book on the health aspects of trading and inparticular two aspects, one from each side of the US and Them; namely, trading the "repeated failure" consequences of THEM and the sports memory iterative refinement of the US people. Both are related to the five minutes of "What the Bleep" that was favorably reviewed. My coauthor has a collegual relationship with the presenter of that five minute portion.

I am educated in many fields and I author in several fields. So I have an academic aspect as an adjunct professor in several fields and they are far ranging and moslty not overlapping. I also am a trained and experienced field researcher and explorer including all 7 biomes of the planet.

I have experienced little formal employment in terms of deriving income but I have been part of many corporations, boards, trusts and foundations. I know the difference between policy making and implementing policy through strategic management.

I have maintained an amateur status re investing and trading throughout my life by reporting periodically, as required, my activities into the system. All of the SEC violations and citations I have recieved were totally and absolutely retracted, withdrawn or dismissed. All IRS audits and actions were also completed with no errors determined to have been on my part.

I am licensed in fields that are near to financial industry licensing and I have participated in training for financial industry licensing of others.

The US and THEM, in my opinion is based on several themes of differences. They include: physiology, psychology, psychiatry, sciences (applied and theoretical), education and learning, the environment, and making money. In one cross examination I was asked about 39 courses that related to the testimony. I had no taken one of them since they were introduced into education after I had left schooling formally. All I could say was that several of the courses did use texts and papers I had written. I average 250 type written pages per day in testimony and 1200 pages is my longest cross examination. I have not lost in any court as an expert witness.

In trading, I do not use the THEM paradigm which is the conventional orthodoxy. The US paradigm is a pool extraction paradigm. Neither paradigm can be used as a test of the other's paradigm. I have never used the conventional orthodoxy since it is based on a mathematics that does not apply to making money.

There is a distribution of results in making money in the financial industry. The highest salaries in the financial industry are paid to sales people whose job it is is to build pools of OPM. The "brains" in the financial industry are those of "quants" who are on a post doctoral level. they look for anomolies and minimize transfer operations in the industry. In terms of pool extraction, which they do not use, they look for "leaks". These are THEM type people and THEM type jobs and functions.

The holy grail is a THEM thing and named by THEM. Seel1 buy2 has a holy grail. It does 50 to 80 % a year and on a great year did 145%. Don invests his capital for a 36% a year return. Many people here respect S1B2. and DO and his bro. I do too. They do well in the THEM paradigm. The OP should look to them for gaining proficiency.

Many people do 20%, 30% or a low multiple of the indexes per year using the conventional orthodoxy. This is where it is at or where the cookie crumbles for most people. Portfoli management and balancing gets about what the indiexes do. Bogle of Vangard does not beat the indexes in mutual funds but he does own vanguard stock that make a multiple of the indexes.

These are all THEM people. Them sets the standards of belief in making money.

So I do the ABC's of crayola to let people know simply (see the word "simply") understand what I see as the paradigm for making money. You can google crayola and find out how to "SEE" the zigzag of the market that any child can do on a chart for you to SEE. Get a child, get a crayola. Let them zig zag some charts.

US deals in three principles to make money. THEM do gaming and betting and protection for their bets.

I use these principles and a 4 part routine to back them up.

1. price change is the basis of making money.

2. you have to be in the market to make money.

3. You have to be on the right side of the market at all times. (reverse to take profits at the end of each trend and begin the next trend in the market.)

The routine is:

1. Monitor

2. Analyze

3. decide

4. timely action (closure to 4 steps)

The OP has brought up the stuff he has taken notes on or something. He is the representative of THEM this week or so. Most reps poopout after a while so be prepared. There are so many THMS that you can just read about anything and see it as speaking for the THEMS. Read stock777 for instance. Read T280 as an antidote to pool extraction; he does one of two trades a day and is reading books to get through 10 years to become profitable. They and others will report in here soon and do their routine.

PVT and SCT is being explained for those who are able to consider it. Jounals I, II and III on equities and the first jounal on SCT. 2007 will also produce a single platform where all of the coding for doing the routine and trading will be available.

a person uses three means to do better. Effectiveness, efficiency and optimizing. These are business terms associated with becoming the best in the business. This is only possible in a pool extraction business model. It is not possible in a gaming or probability model. THEM type people are not using a business oriented model. Instead, they use a RISK oriented model.

You can refer to LO and Repin (MIT) to see bankers sweat with fear and anxiety in the THEM orientaion. Check out R Peterson (Stnford) on the psy and brain of THEM. Do Goleman on the "emotional intelligence" of THEM. Denise Shull of CBOT is doing a 1,000 dollar "recovery program for eating up the "fear" energy of trading the THEM way. Read Capt Kirk's revenege in the 19DEC economist to see how THEM is doing and what it is doing to people.

My book 5 will cover what is what from a pool extraction viewpoint.

THEM uses an entry /exit strategy. US uses a hold/reversal strategy. US feels an exit is the same as an entry.

So the child'szigzags show the potential of the market to give money. It is just a pipeline that is there all of the time. It is huge and no trader can affect it in any way what so ever.

So you can do US in ANY market on ANY fractal at ANY time the market is open. This is a SIMPLE thing to do. It is also very very unbelieveable by the standards you may be using if you use the THEM convnetional orthodoxy.

So we begin with a long OP post that explains stuff. BE Happy. Us is where I operate and I am passing it forward to those who want to build their minds and get the biochemicals to make it work fast. trading with sports memory is fun. Them does not get to sprots memory for many good reasons. Some of the proven ones are fear, anxiety and anger.

How would you feel doing the zig zags everyday all day long? fear, anxiety, and anger...I don't think so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top