No need to break the economy. Could have a war to sell arms to other countries and if it results in a couple of nukes going off we get a nice nuclear winter pushing global warming down the road.

I find part of the demon in this thought is comparison of oneself with others. When you develop a habit of not doing this comparison with others you might find some of these demons disappear.

You might not be able to change what life throws at you but you can choose your response to it. This doesn’t remove the suffering aspect but it also doesn’t heap misery on top of it.

-Rumi

We have at absolute pressure; that's something.

We should start by describing and not explaining like Wittgenstein suggests.

I could start describing a universe and only get so far. The notion that someone disagrees with that description would likely arise and they contribute another description of the universe.

As more descriptions are added and subtracted the universe starts to reveal itself. It seems to me that the final description would still be unsatisfying; and I’m satisfied with this mystery.

I’ve thought about Wittgenstein’s quote and in some sense there’s no escaping the present. When I recollect the past it happens in the present and when I look to the future that too happens in the present. When the past happened it was the present (at that present time) and when when I wait a few minutes the future is the present.

I believe the infinite temporal duration he refers to is often used as a paradigm as the concept might have more use.

Security Analysis- Benjamin Graham
The Wealth of Nations- Adam Smith

My intuition is that people value earned money differently than money from other sources (e.g. gifted money). I’d like to say a $1 is a $1 but I’m more inclined to spend birthday money given to me than I am money I’ve earned working.

I envision Banno and I sitting at the table. Banno realizing that he is the only rational one sitting at the table offers me $9 and himself $1 to maximize his gain.

I recall Warren Buffet remarking on something similar:

“I always look at IQ and talent as representing horsepower of the motor, but then in terms of the output, the efficiency with which the motor works, depends on rationality. That’s because a lot of people start out with 400- horsepower motors and get a hundred horsepower output. It’s way better to have a 200 horsepower motor and get it all into output. So why do smart people do things that interfere with getting the output they’re entitled to? It gets into the habits, and character and temperament, and it really gets into behaving in a rational manner. Not getting in your own way.”

Wittgenstein wrote in “most cases the meaning of a word is “ maybe this is an example of a time when a word is used within a sentence and meaning is not use. It seems we (I) like to wait around for a playable language game when we are looking at the unplayable one.

Is “good” indefinable? Why not answer yes?

Indefinable for every context, definable when used?

Maybe the reason I can not answer the original question is because I (we?) don’t know the language game it’s being used in.

I've never heard of him, but then I never heard of Wittgenstein or Austin until I visited these forums. I think I'll see where this rabbit (Hare?) hole leads to.

Nothing. I find it is people that are lacking.

"thing" is a bit harsh if I said my wife. my family, friends, loved ones I would diminish the value certainly by filing them under "thing."

"In" could also have different outcomes such as within my life or within what I consider to be my life. Subtly different but philosophy is a word game.

The most valuable thing in my life is likely my house but it means relatively little to me in comparison to say loved ones.

Like I said a language game. I'm drunk and bittercrank knows more words than me.

I can't remember the conclusion of that thread (if there was one) but doesn't go something like: "It's a duck. It's a rabbit." Seems the "then" is what projects the temporality.

Has his writing changed my life?
Yes because it was ultimately his writings that changed how I approach conversations and questions.

No, because like most philosophical writings I did not understand a majority of what he wrote (I find it is actually quite the endeavor to read a philosophical work sincerely). I relied on Banno's cryptic chatter to enlighten me on his ideas so I suppose, in a sense, I'm more indebted to him than to Wittgenstein.

I appreciate you talking down to my level. Your comedy seems to improve when the audience can understand what you're conveying.

Just as I suspected... Hanover is still not funny :(