Apophenia as an apologist for clairvoyance in the capital markets. - page 11
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
People don't change, the same ignorance and arrogance...
That's right! - And as we can see - this is written by someone who himself is an example of this blatant ignorance and conceit.
Read the writings of the Holy Fathers who lived in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth centuries and it will be revealed to you...
Ahaha, that was the time on the contrary these scholastic saints were stealing from antique authors and turning it into scholasticism to propagate christian mythology among the readers, it's not a secret that at that time educated people were reading mostly antique classic philosophers and scholars, and the Christian theme had not yet produced anything meaningful, i.e. the pagan world had already produced science and art, and Christian apologists were like boys trying to squeeze into the agenda, and theosophy was controversial even to the scholastics themselves, so recommending reading early scholastics is not a good idea, nothing good. 😏
You could elaborate on that, and show that the scholastics were great hypocrites, for example a 3rd century scholast like Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius set his main goal in your books"to justify Christianity in the eyes of the still attached to ancient values Roman intelligentsia" and mentioned that his reader would be convinced rather by references to Plato and Cicero than by references to the Bible (!) and at the same time Lactantius quoted much and eagerly the pagan authors, Greeks and Latins, simultaneously denigrating them, scolding them, condemning them, but this did not prevent him from using their theses as proofs and proofs of the truth of Christian teaching (how is it, huh?) - such cynical hypocritical characters were these early Christian apologists.
Lactantius referred in particular to the legendary mystic Hermes Trismegistus, the books of the Sibylline, Pythagoras, Socrates and Plato to convince his pagan readers of the faithfulness of Christian revelation and wrote:"And now I will call not the prophets to witness.But at the same time the sly liar Lactantius quoted Hermes very selectively, in passages, and only that which suited his context (double standard, selectivity), and sometimes he simply twisted it, distorting the text! Hermes, as we know now, was needed by him for his justifications such as: the unity of God, the principle of piety and the justification of Jesus' commandments, and here he substitutes the Hermetic triad for the alleged justification of the Christian trinity, and concludes that Hermes turns out to have been talking about the Trinity, such news, huh?! - well, those points that did not fit Lactus, of course, he omitted or quoted with modification or began to sharply blaspheme Hermes within the same text! - This is what early scholasticism is all about.
Cyril of Alexandria, a scholastic theologian, was one of the key Christian theologians of the 5th century, and he, too, was still upset that Christianity could not smother Pagan philosophy and science to death, and he didn't bend to quote Gnostic Pagans, especially from the Hermetic Corpus and Asclepius, and especially Julian in support of Christianity, simultaneously doing so without forgetting to treat those quoted!
Julian himself writes quite interesting things, for example:"In accusing the Greek religion of ridiculous fictions and myths, Christians have concocted equally ridiculous fables. The Hellenic religion is the religion of the greatest thinkers, poets, statesmen. How can a religion that is barely 300 years old, that arose among a small barbarian tribe that occupied a small part of Palestine, that has no glorious past behind it, that gave the world no philosopher, a religion whose founder was a simple carpenter and whose first preachers were Galilean fishermen, compare with it?"
Julian rightly points out that Egyptian and Chaldean wisdom gave the world a great number of wise men, whereas Christians had none. Besides the values of the ancient world it was not only gnosis, but also science: irrigation, geometry, hierarchy of administration, arithmetic, astrology, astronomy, music and grammar and even medicine in the form of medicinal herbs. Christians at the time could boast nothing of the sort.
So what does Cyril reply to this? - Nothing original, in the same way, he admits the importance and authority of Trismegistus and other pagan books, and cites them to justify the theological ideas of Christianity, adroitly maneuvering, Cyril took only strictly monotheistic statements emphasizing immateriality, omnipotence, all-perfect unified deity, and among the citations he gave, not one, which would contradict the Christian teaching (again, selectivity! and double standards) - and there were hardly any in the collection of 15 books from which he borrowed them! The inconvenient points, as usual, have been neatly sidestepped. That said, there is nothing specifically Christian in these quotations, but there is also nothing that any Christian theologian would not subscribe to. Thus, by the example of this important scholastic, we see how ridiculously and crudely the PR campaign of the early Christian apologists was constructed.
It is already clear that the Christians simply stole suitable ideas from the Gnostic pagans, which from the very beginning were not Christian at all, e.g. they likened the hermetic triad (First Mind, Mind-Demiurge and Word) to the Holy Trinity, and stitched the idea of One to monotheism with white threads, identified the all-perfect firstborn of divinity as Jesus, the word of God creating, well that is of course the Word of Scripture, and so on. "By Mind, originating from Mind, and Light from Light; I believe," writes Cyril, "Hermes refers to the Son. He also mentions the Spirit" - of course the Holy Spirit, well yes, a typical equivocation, a rather cheap sophism.
The question arises: there is much that is incompatible with Christian teaching in hermetic treatises, so why did Cyril leave this out? What to explain, that his position in this question so strongly differed from a position of his western senior contemporary Augustine, scourging both Hermes, and hermetic works? Of Christian authors, perhaps the greatest influence of hermetic books was experienced by Lactantius. But Lactantius wrote in the pre-Nicaea epoch when the framework of orthodoxy was wider, than in V century there are some explanations of Cyril's position. First, Cyril's main aim was to refute Julian. To achieve this aim he was ready to use any controversy of the pagan authors and any approximation of them to Christianity. Secondly, in the fifth century. (unlike in the fourth) hermeticism in Egypt was probably of little influence and no danger to the Church, whereas in Roman Africa the bishop of Hippo had a strong enemy in the person of hermeticism (see below). Therefore Augustine, unlike Cyril, was irreconcilable with Hermeticism.
I think it is already clear that all these early Christian theological writings are actually rather pathetic graphomania pursuing religious and political goals.
Besides Hermes was an Egyptian, and Egypt was the birthplace of Moses, and Cyril wrote, that the famous Greek philosophers - Pythagoras, Thales, Plato - got in Egypt that wisdom which went back to Moses, from the same source was drawn, according to Cyril, all invented by Hermes - good from the Christian's point of view. It is characteristic, that among the fruits of civilization, brought by Hermes to Egypt, religion is not mentioned, and the fact that Hermes was a priest is mentioned in passing. Cyril thus separates Hermes from the "unholy" Egyptian religion. Such is the double-mindedness.
Aurelius Augustine, another scholast, chose not to acknowledge the wisdom of the ancient pagans and blasphemed Hermes in every possible way, at the same time in places he also twisted his concepts, for example, in spite of the fact that it was obvious to all cultured people That when Hermes wrote about an immaterial god, but places where Hermes wrote about statues, as objects of worship, Aurelius Augustine "manages" to understand literally and comes down with all fury with his denunciation of barbarous worship to statues. Hermes himself, according to Augustine, was possessed by a demonic spirit. This is so typical of the scholastics! Demonisation as it is. Next about Asclepius: it is noteworthy that the same text, the Apocalypse of Asclepius, was perceived quite differently by two Christian writers, Lactantius and Augustine. For Lactantius it is a prophecy of the end of the world, for Augustine, who lived after the triumph of Christianity, it is a prediction of the demise of paganism, made from a position hostile to Christianity. As usual, I am spinning, I want to deceive.
What explains such a significant difference in the position of the two Latin theologians, Lactantius and Augustine? One of the main tasks of Lactantius was to convince pagan readers of the truth of the Christian religion and nothing more. So he stresses the similarities between the new faith and all the best that, in his view, the pre-Christian world had provided. Furthermore, Lactantius belonged to the tradition of Christian Gnosis (but not Gnosticism), and he felt Hermetic Gnosis to be quite close to his worldview. Augustine's aim, on the other hand, was solely to stigmatise paganism in order to repel his Christian brethren from its "filth". No compromise with a defeated religion was possible for him. He could use the ideas of Neoplatonism, for the latter, despite its pagan character, was a philosophical doctrine and not a religious cult, but Augustine perceived Hermes not primarily as an ancient sage, the progenitor of philosophy, but as a pagan prophet.
That's in a nutshell about the 'value' of reading the early Chriatian scholastics as exemplified by individual authors and what is there to be found amongst the lies I wonder...? 😏
...Human nature is unchangeable, that it is a constant.
Rubbish, of course...
Just not familiar with modern scientific data? - And trying to PR religion here... 😏 for example there are about two new mutations every year in the human genome for each of the 3.5 billion base pairs (see Jason Hodgson lectures) but the main thing of course is factors of nutrition and activity, for example modern people are more likely to have a mid arm artery and less likely to grow wisdom teeth than those who lived a century ago (see study by Teghan Lucas, Jaliya Kumaratilake, Maciej Henneberg) but it is also interesting that brain size has started a downward trend: the human brain increased in size twice, 2.1 and 1.5 million years ago, and then, relatively recently, three thousand years ago, shrank again, and in the future the greater externalisation of knowledge, which requires less and less energy to store large amounts of information individually, will probably further reduce brain size...
But of course cultural aspects are changing even faster, and particularly steep changes have happened in recent centuries, how can you not understand that? - The amazing narrowness of thinking!
Of course the changes are not as fast as we would like them to be, but the thesis that human nature is unchanging is undoubtedly a stupidity.
Man has not changed one iota since Adam was cast out of Paradise.
We're not in church here, so your argument isn't valid... Try straining your erudition next time and spouting something more meaningful than quotes from Jewish fairy tales 🙂
Science, which supposedly moves man forward, actually dehumanises him and throws him backwards.
So who's holding back? - Run back to the forests and caves! 😀 - just remember to leave all devices and medicine too, treat only with herbs now. 😁
What an amazing thing! - A man writes his texts thanks to a whole stack of IT technology, and complains about science.
World War I and then the Second World War that followed demonstrate this well. So the savages were far more human than we are today.
Cannibalism, ritualistic killing, violent cults, yes... it's certainly human, nay logic twisted... 😁
A man who thinks he's different from other humans because he's smarter and more educated is pathetic.
That's right, here you are looking pretty pathetic with these pseudo-scientific fantasies and religious fairy tales...
Look around you and you will easily see these "experts" and "professionals" in every field who have not seen, not heard, not read, have no idea what they are talking about...
What kind of specialists are these who haven't seen anything? 🤔
You've got a contradiction in your very wording... or just an unfortunate figure of speech... In reality it is the experts who should be trusted and not the scoundrels obsessed with religious nonsense.
One wonders about the difference between the pricing mechanism and the mechanism for regulating it. The volatility of bonds and cryptocurrencies is precisely why they are different, but the pricing mechanism is the same. Well, isn't algotrading a human brain thing?
You've got your head in the puddle again, honourable... To begin with, they are essentially different instruments, bonds are debt instruments with "guaranteed returns", equities are equity instruments, crypto is something else with an undefined intrinsic value... and it is the notion of value that should be taken as a starting point.
Your gaps in knowledge are staggering... So for example when talking about bonds you must first of all understand the time value of money, because it is a debt instrument, I recommend at least an overview reading of Frank Fabozzi, so as not to look stupid next time, to know the relationship between price and yield, the pricing of zero and non-zero coupon bonds, discounts.
You must first understand the economics of transactions: as soon as the market yield rises above the coupon rate at some point in time, the price of the bond adapts to the new conditions so that the investor buying the bond can get an additional benefit from the purchase. If the price did not change, investors would refuse to buy a bond offering a below-market yield. Thus, the lack of demand causes the price to fall and the yield on the bond to rise. This is what happens in reality when the price falls below par. If the demanded market yield is lower than the coupon rate, the bond must be sold at a price higher than par. This is because the investor, had he purchased the bond at par, would have received a coupon rate that exceeds the fair market yield. As a result the price of a bond with such an attractive yield would go up. The price can go up until the bond's yield matches the required market yield. A bond whose price exceeds its face value is said to be sold at a premium.
Obviously, the pricing of other instruments like shares, forwards, interest rate swaps will be determined by their own economic laws.
Without even a rudimentary knowledge of the subject, you will look foolish every time.
It is naive to think that the modelling method in question was born out of nothing. It wasn't, because the method was a kind of protest and response to all that empty econometric chatter and writing that came to us from the West. In order to understand the question it is necessary to read not western writers, but Russian mathematical scientists.
So what are western writers bad and what are others good at? 😉 It is sheer nonsense to call the "western" financial science econometric chatter, at least because, (A) it has been working successfully for many years, (B) it is applied in Russia as well, without exception.
All the more so because it has long been universal rather than "Western".
This being the case, no one denies, of course, that the Russian mathematical school is one of the best.
But the very attempt of opposition to "the West" shows limited and sluggish thinking of this gentleman, for financial science is universal and works equally everywhere, well, there were many Nobel Prize winners in "the damned West", whose methods are successfully applied in Russia as well, including monetary methods.
Thus, Mr Niroba has again puddled in his own arguments.
And the annual timeframe charts should pull you out of the quagmire of hourly timeframes to allow you to see anything beyond your own nose.
Typical unverifiable and unfalsifiable statement, essentially a sectarian mantra.
You should rely more on objective facts and statistical conclusions rather than just verbiage.
Here are some examples.
It is great, of course. We see that you have learned how to make charts and draw different lines and stripes on them, but we only have one question:
Will there be any profits? 😏
People do not change, the same ignorance and conceit, the same endless lies, slander, insults, malice, envy, hatred, condemnation, backbiting and other vices.
Read the writings of the Holy Fathers who lived in the first, second, third, fourth and fifth centuries and you will see that human nature is unchangeable, that it is a constant. Man has not changed one iota since Adam's expulsion from Paradise. Science, which supposedly moves man forward, actually dehumanises him and throws him backwards. The First World War and then the Second World War, which followed, show this very well. The savages were therefore far more human than we are today.
A man who thinks he is different from other men, because he is more intelligent and more educated, is pathetic.
Uh-huh... Arguing World War II is a win-win. There's also a trump card - WWII. Wait for it...
Everything I wrote was about me.
Did you recognise yourself and take it personally?
Drimmer... Darling... Keeping the forum alive with your philosophical mind. Well done!
All I wrote was all about me.
Did you recognise yourself and take it all personally?
Even when you write a targeted message addressed to a specific character, do you still write it in such a space in the air to stand on a mountain like Moses?
All I wrote was all about me.
Did you recognise yourself and take it personally?
Then all the more so the reply comments were more than fair... 😉
Anyway no offence, it's just this style of polemics to make you more critical and thoughtful about what you put out on the forum.
Of course we all understand that a correction in the markets is long overdue and a number of large investors have been buying downside insurance for some time now, and the dynamics of option premiums suggest a growing desire to protect against a possible decline in the S&And nevertheless, the forecast of the precise trigger and depth of fall is beyond a common human mind, even such a titan as Jeremy Grantham, famous for his famous prediction of the worst market crash in American history, can't predict the exact limits of the process, but the forum newcomer knows everything for sure with his fractal markup... 😏
Even the venerable Jim Rogers, who rightly said last year in April that the worst is yet to come, even he couldn't name the exact benchmarks for V-shape... The legendary Ray Dalio who predicted the 2008 crisis and is now issuing catastrophic predictions too, can't name the exact parameters of the fall either, moreover he is well aware of the degree of uncertainty and admits that his other predictions were wrong... But the adept of fractal-wave analysis from the mql5 forum certainly did them all... 😁
Drimmer... Darling... Keeping the forum alive with your philosophical mind. Well done!
Having fun, that's right... 🙂 🙂
Welcome back! Long time no see...