Everything means something because meaning is created, not discovered. They can be greedy, idiots, and still know how to come out on top of a failing empire.
I really think there’s a lot more to this than meets the eye. There being winners implies there being losers also. If the ultra wealthy can come out on top, it leaves the rest of the US with a debased currency on bottom.
Is gold up 2x since 2 years ago, or is the US Dollar loosing its purchase power at a rate not seen since 1970s (Nixon took USD off gold) and 2008-11 (global housing crisis)?
Suddenly, Elons stock-performance based bonus benchmarked at $1T makes some sense…
You’re confusing what I mean. Of course you can make fictitious meaning out of anything. But all meaning is created. All of it. No meaning is discovered.
To say there is no meaning, it represents the depth of ingenuity rather than the depth of reality. Everything has meaning. For example, it might mean something about the past that lead to these circumstances, the potential futures, potential present intentions or lack thereof…
Whether or not you think the meaning fictitious is another topic altogether. If you’re saying there is no meaning, and so therefore any meaning must be fictitious, then you’re just prematurely shutting the door on every perspective which disagrees with yours.
You’re welcome to hold whatever abstract position you like, but the claim that context I’ve raised is “meaningless” misses the point. Meaning isn’t inherent in the universe—it’s created by observers—so dismissing context as meaningless is simply incoherent. Context is meaning.
I’m not here to debate metaphysics. I’m here to discuss the economic implications of current events: (1) China’s push to build a gold-backed, highly liquid, transferable settlement asset, (2) Russia’s claim that the U.S. may pursue similar moves that could undercut the dollar, (3) gold doubling per USD in the last two years and the long historical context that introduces, and (4) the everything bubble we’re in right now. The question is what these signals imply for the future, not whether signals “mean nothing.”
If you believe they point to a different outcome, offer a substantive alternative. Otherwise, insisting that everything is meaningless adds nothing to the discussion; it only reveals the limitations of your perspective, which I’m uninterested in. That, limited, world view is the safe “fantasy land” here…
In my fantasy world? Alright friend, you can take whatever high level position you want and forever repeat your incorrect points. As a matter of fact, however, there is no essence to meaning in the universe. Meaning is derived from the observer. So your point about the validity of meaning is fruitless: there is no such thing as a meaningless piece of context. Context is meaning. Unless you are so narrow minded in your fantasy land as to believe in such limitations, the meaning is there somewhere. I would encourage the interested reader, not those of whom are only interested in preserving their shallow ideological pool, to consider for a moment that the world is far more complex than is immediately obvious.
As for you, on the other hand, I fail to understand why you’ve tethered my curiosity to the dispute of whether meaning is pervasive to all things—or not. Meaning is what you make of it, and you’ve clearly made nothing of it, and I clearly can not help you see beyond such boundaries, so I will (hopefully) end this discussion now. I am not interested in debating my philosophies. That’s just not what I came here for.
My goal was to discuss the meaning of various macroeconomic market activities, alongside the (very real) efforts China is taking to develop their own gold-backed liquid, transferable, monetary-grade asset that can serve like a global banking/settlement medium. As well as, Russias claim that, the US is moving toward a similar move which would deface US currency.
This debate is about what future these completely valid signs point toward. It’s not about the validity of signage. It’s not about whether meaning is inherent or not. Nor is about fantasy land ideology. It’s about economics. If you think the signs mean something other than what they suggest, be my guest and introduce a novel idea. Otherwise, like I said before, I don’t care whether you think the signs may or may not mean “nothing.”
“Nothing” doesn’t even make sense in this context. It’s akin a statement like “global warming means nothing.” Duh, you make the meaning. If all you can think of is “nothing,” it says more about you than the actual affairs of the world.
Everything means something because meaning is created, not discovered. They can be greedy, idiots, and still know how to come out on top of a failing empire.
I really think there’s a lot more to this than meets the eye. There being winners implies there being losers also. If the ultra wealthy can come out on top, it leaves the rest of the US with a debased currency on bottom.
Is gold up 2x since 2 years ago, or is the US Dollar loosing its purchase power at a rate not seen since 1970s (Nixon took USD off gold) and 2008-11 (global housing crisis)?
Suddenly, Elons stock-performance based bonus benchmarked at $1T makes some sense…
You can make fictious meaning out of everything. That doesn’t mean there is meaning.
You’re confusing what I mean. Of course you can make fictitious meaning out of anything. But all meaning is created. All of it. No meaning is discovered.
To say there is no meaning, it represents the depth of ingenuity rather than the depth of reality. Everything has meaning. For example, it might mean something about the past that lead to these circumstances, the potential futures, potential present intentions or lack thereof…
Whether or not you think the meaning fictitious is another topic altogether. If you’re saying there is no meaning, and so therefore any meaning must be fictitious, then you’re just prematurely shutting the door on every perspective which disagrees with yours.
What you say means nothing to me. See?
Yes, I do see. You’re conflating what has no meaning to you with what has no meaning at all. They aren’t the same thing, though.
So you do understand. In your fantasy world you can believe whatever fantasies you want. They doesn’t mean they have meaning.
You’re welcome to hold whatever abstract position you like, but the claim that context I’ve raised is “meaningless” misses the point. Meaning isn’t inherent in the universe—it’s created by observers—so dismissing context as meaningless is simply incoherent. Context is meaning.
I’m not here to debate metaphysics. I’m here to discuss the economic implications of current events: (1) China’s push to build a gold-backed, highly liquid, transferable settlement asset, (2) Russia’s claim that the U.S. may pursue similar moves that could undercut the dollar, (3) gold doubling per USD in the last two years and the long historical context that introduces, and (4) the everything bubble we’re in right now. The question is what these signals imply for the future, not whether signals “mean nothing.”
If you believe they point to a different outcome, offer a substantive alternative. Otherwise, insisting that everything is meaningless adds nothing to the discussion; it only reveals the limitations of your perspective, which I’m uninterested in. That, limited, world view is the safe “fantasy land” here…
In my fantasy world? Alright friend, you can take whatever high level position you want and forever repeat your incorrect points. As a matter of fact, however, there is no essence to meaning in the universe. Meaning is derived from the observer. So your point about the validity of meaning is fruitless: there is no such thing as a meaningless piece of context. Context is meaning. Unless you are so narrow minded in your fantasy land as to believe in such limitations, the meaning is there somewhere. I would encourage the interested reader, not those of whom are only interested in preserving their shallow ideological pool, to consider for a moment that the world is far more complex than is immediately obvious.
As for you, on the other hand, I fail to understand why you’ve tethered my curiosity to the dispute of whether meaning is pervasive to all things—or not. Meaning is what you make of it, and you’ve clearly made nothing of it, and I clearly can not help you see beyond such boundaries, so I will (hopefully) end this discussion now. I am not interested in debating my philosophies. That’s just not what I came here for.
My goal was to discuss the meaning of various macroeconomic market activities, alongside the (very real) efforts China is taking to develop their own gold-backed liquid, transferable, monetary-grade asset that can serve like a global banking/settlement medium. As well as, Russias claim that, the US is moving toward a similar move which would deface US currency.
This debate is about what future these completely valid signs point toward. It’s not about the validity of signage. It’s not about whether meaning is inherent or not. Nor is about fantasy land ideology. It’s about economics. If you think the signs mean something other than what they suggest, be my guest and introduce a novel idea. Otherwise, like I said before, I don’t care whether you think the signs may or may not mean “nothing.”
“Nothing” doesn’t even make sense in this context. It’s akin a statement like “global warming means nothing.” Duh, you make the meaning. If all you can think of is “nothing,” it says more about you than the actual affairs of the world.