How To Think Correctly

[CYOF]

My take on thinking correctly would be a vivid clear picture in the mind of what is the problem or desire that we most need.

Crystal clear uninterrupted visualisation techniques must be what Tesla was using, also the Incas, Aztecs and Pharonic Egyptians. How they achieved this I do not know, though we may look for clues in the texts from antiquity.

If we use the bible as an historical reference work, rather than a religious one, we may be able to gain a peek into the past at the psychology of that time and maybe a glimpse of what we seek that was known before and up to the biblical texts, but is lost to us now in its original form. (notwithstanding alleged manipulations of the biblical texts in later history, as is the problem with all historical texts imo.)


Matthew 7:7
Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

Matthew 7:8
For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

Mark 11:24
Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.


I've only just scratched the surface. I feel like an archaeologist blowing the dust off the sealed entrance of an ancient tomb and after making a small hole, peering into the darkness.


"Can you see anything'"


"Yes, it is wonderful"

A follow up to LM's very good post:

Ouspensky taught that throughout history certain artifacts were created by "men of higher mind" and those with the ability to translate or decipher the authors' meanings can, themselves, attain at least the possibility of attaining higher mind. Examples in art cited by Ouspensky included the Sphinx of Ghiza, certain Gothic cathedrals, selected religious texts such as the Gospels and the Upanishads (even though the interpretation of each of these as works of esoteric art must necessarily transcend the usual archaeological interpretations and, in the case of the Gospels, the usual religious interpretations).9 For instance, Ouspensky rejects the dogmatic Christian view of the Gospels as popular religious texts considering them, instead, principally psychological arguments the purpose of which was never intended to create and subsequently support an eschatologically oriented bureaucracy. And, for Ouspensky, in the case of the Gospels it has been their usurpation by men of ordinary mind which has led to the creation and popularization of Christianity with its attendant unrealistic doctrines and less than inspired but often base and contemptible history

Slainte.

 

[CYOF]

Wel...hehe...what you and you say in broad outline is correct.

However...there are days when the bassoon player has a cold and cannot play or the cellist is replaced by another cellist....and to the trained ear...this is detectable...and so...even though there are many composers who compose many different works...not every performance is identical...but we could say...in spirit...very similar. All sorts of additional hidden factors influence the end result such as temperature, humidity, acoustics, etc., hehe

To a general audience a tune is a tune.

But just as I explained above ....about the magician...so the same applies to the truly skilled trader .....who has managed over time and with great effort......to be able to master the great kaliedoscope of skills........ both tangible and intangible that make up the ability to percieve...the chart as it wafts away and extendfs beyond the right of the screen....showing clearly the manifestation of lucid expectation.

The next time you read a similar post by Socrtaes, and when you hear thigs like "the chart as it wafts away and extends beyond the right of the screen" , consider the following:

Ouspensky accepts the first Critique's doctrine called Transcendental Aesthetic wherein Kant argues that the intuition [experience] of both space and time are predicated upon forms particular to our sensibilities and not actual [objective] existents.3 Kant's "Copernican Revolution"dispels a more common sensical view whereby we generally think of time and space as discrete objects functioning not unlike a container within which our life and those things affecting our life reside and evolve. From this latter and, perhaps, more traditional point of view it makes little practical difference to the average man whether either the critical philosophy or, for that matter, modern scientific thought premises spatio-temporal relations ontologically different from that reported by common sense. In our lives space exists as an external three dimensional Euclidean continuum while time shows itself as an internal sensation not necessarily grounded upon any preexisting spatial relationship. [Here it would be more correct to state that spatial relationships are predicated on the experience of time as sensation.] Although space is felt three dimensionally, we experience time linearly but, like space, we presume it remains one and the same for all existence. Where time comes from or where it may go remains obscured, and in an effort to communicate to ourselves and by way of an attempt to understand the supposed physical "properties" of both space and time we are forced to offer up vague and indefinite descriptive terms such as "infinity" which, while having a definite mathematical meaning, nevertheless remain tenuous when viewed from the standpoint of physical properties.

Slainte,

 

[CYOF]

Now, just in case some think I am losing it again, I can assure you I am not.

We should never forget what our immediate GOALS are, but this does not mean that you ignore your ULTIMATE GOAL.

A jigsaw is made up of many pieces - sometimes 5 or 6 will fit together very easy, and sometimes it can take a very long time to find one piece - but - have you ever tried putting all the pieces with straight edges together first - it can really make a difference :idea:

Slainte,

 

[SOCRATES]

The next time you read a similar post by Socrtaes, and when you hear thigs like "the chart as it wafts away and extends beyond the right of the screen" , consider the following:

Ouspensky accepts the first Critique's doctrine called Transcendental Aesthetic wherein Kant argues that the intuition [experience] of both space and time are predicated upon forms particular to our sensibilities and not actual [objective] existents.3 Kant's "Copernican Revolution"dispels a more common sensical view whereby we generally think of time and space as discrete objects functioning not unlike a container within which our life and those things affecting our life reside and evolve. From this latter and, perhaps, more traditional point of view it makes little practical difference to the average man whether either the critical philosophy or, for that matter, modern scientific thought premises spatio-temporal relations ontologically different from that reported by common sense. In our lives space exists as an external three dimensional Euclidean continuum while time shows itself as an internal sensation not necessarily grounded upon any preexisting spatial relationship. [Here it would be more correct to state that spatial relationships are predicated on the experience of time as sensation.] Although space is felt three dimensionally, we experience time linearly but, like space, we presume it remains one and the same for all existence. Where time comes from or where it may go remains obscured, and in an effort to communicate to ourselves and by way of an attempt to understand the supposed physical "properties" of both space and time we are forced to offer up vague and indefinite descriptive terms such as "infinity" which, while having a definite mathematical meaning, nevertheless remain tenuous when viewed from the standpoint of physical properties.

Slainte,

Let me put it to you this way.....time...the passage and use of time....is flexible.

Time.....does not subject itself to a harness...the harness put on time is artificial.

When a ship moves through the water, it leaves behind it a wake.

The wake is caused by the ship moving forward.

The wake does not push the ship at all even though in daydreaming observation devoid of applied thought it may appear to do so, for the sake of illustration.

Therefore as time is flexible, imprisoning it and dividing it into equal segments is also artificial. The segments do not qualify the time or its use, although it seems so.

Having been given a glimpse of the idea that time is not rigid as many are misdirected or seduced to believe or assume, you now have the germ of an idea of additionally it being malleable by virtue of it being flexible.

I now leave you to ponder on this very powerful axiom.

I will remind you...in case you have not encounterd my posts before today....that an axiom is a fundamental truth....and for you to ponder on the magnitude of this purely intangible concept, but a very real one nevertheless.

 

[CYOF]

Let me put it to you this way.....time...the passage and use of time....is flexible.

Time.....does not subject itself to a harness...the harness put on time is artificial.

When a ship moves through the water, it leaves behind it a wake.

The wake is caused by the ship moving forward.

The wake does not push the ship at all even though in daydreaming observation devoid of applied thought it may appear to do so, for the sake of illustration.

Therefore as time is flexible, imprisoning it and dividing it into equal segments is also artificial. The segments do not qualify the time or its use, although it seems so.

Having been given a glimpse of the idea that time is not rigid as many are misdirected or seduced to believe or assume, you now have the germ of an idea of additionally it being malleable by virtue of it being flexible.

I now leave you to ponder on this very powerful axiom.

I will remind you...in case you have not encounterd my posts before today....that an axiom is a fundamental truth....and for you to ponder on the magnitude of this purely intangible concept, but a very real one nevertheless.

Not entirely what I was expecting in your response Socrates, it is much more than I expected.

You cease to amaze me, as always.

Lets see if any more want to join in?

Slainte,

 

[SOCRATES]

Not entirely what I was expecting in your response Socrates, it is much more than I expected.

You cease to amaze me, as always.

Lets see if any more want to join in?

Slainte,

I cease to amaze you or I never cease to amaze you ? :cheesy:

OK...If time is not rigid....and it is understood now why it is not...it raises two questions...the first one being it cannot be forced and the second the opposite...

 

[blackcab]

Yours is not an uncommon error many members and visitors make about the nature of websites of this genre. They erroneously misdirect themselves to derive incorrect assumptions from what is posted here. This is because their frame of reference is incorrect. They are apt to treat a thread as if it were a sort of free classroom. This is not so. It is not appropriate to use a public board as if it were a free classroom. A public board is unsuitable for the purpose. There are a handful of us who know this and understand this, but it seems as if the great majority do not. This leads to all kinds of misunderstandings which emanate all kinds of irrelevant reactions. Surely the purpose of public boards is discussion. Then the purpose and correct use of threads must be specific discussion, and then discussions among equals, each one contributing according to his viewpoint and interest, I respectfully submit, and all else derived, including learning something of merit, has to be a bonus, but not an imposition upon the giver to provide.

Why does this sound so much like SOCRATES?

 

[zupcon]

Let me put it to you this way.....time...the passage and use of time....is flexible.

I’m generally trying to stay clear of this thread, as it’s all a bit incoherent for my simple scientists brain. However I thought Id comment on the issue of time, from perhaps a more practical perspective.

I’m sure most people will have experienced extremes in at least their own personal perception of time. Anyone who’s unfortunate enough to have been involved in an automobile accident has probably experienced time appearing to slow right down. Now what might be interesting is that these types of experiences are generally accompanied by a heightened perception and awareness, which in many cases allows the driver to take evasive action which under normal circumstances they would be incapable of.

Conversely, time can appear to move very quickly, for example when you’re involved in an enjoyable pursuit, and in these cases, any sense of awareness generally diminishes.

Clearly we are capable of switching between these two states, perhaps not at will, and for most of us we are probably unaware of the trigger that causes the shifts between these two quite polorised states, but I see no reason why it isn’t a skill that could be developed. I don’t really want to discuss how this relates to trading, as it’s something I am extremely uncomfortable with, but I am prepared to at least consider the idea that any technique that heightens perception, and provides lucidity in thinking, could perhaps be of benefit.

A formula one driver for example is probably capable of adopting either of the mental states described above, and one is clearly more beneficial to the task at hand than the other. The same may well be the case for traders, but Id respectfully submit it isnt a prerequisite to success.

regards
zup

 

[Atilla]

Let me put it to you this way.....time...the passage and use of time....is flexible.

Time.....does not subject itself to a harness...the harness put on time is artificial.

When a ship moves through the water, it leaves behind it a wake.

The wake is caused by the ship moving forward.

The wake does not push the ship at all even though in daydreaming observation devoid of applied thought it may appear to do so, for the sake of illustration.

Therefore as time is flexible, imprisoning it and dividing it into equal segments is also artificial. The segments do not qualify the time or its use, although it seems so.

Having been given a glimpse of the idea that time is not rigid as many are misdirected or seduced to believe or assume, you now have the germ of an idea of additionally it being malleable by virtue of it being flexible.

I now leave you to ponder on this very powerful axiom.

I will remind you...in case you have not encounterd my posts before today....that an axiom is a fundamental truth....and for you to ponder on the magnitude of this purely intangible concept, but a very real one nevertheless.

Very interesting. If I may add from a laymans view with respect to how one responds to events and treatment of time based on the sport of badminton, tennis or football. Usually, people who are competitive often get quite excited about scoring the point.

For example the speed at which a shuttle **** falls or flies from the air due to it's structure is an interesting one for a projectile - in terms of change in speed and flight path.

When a shuttle is falling straight down from above beginners usually start out by missing to hit it. This is not because they don't have the stroke or time but because in the excitement they react too quickly and swing before the approrpriate time. Professional players not only get into position quickly but have ample time to consider their options, take the shot and place it. With beginners as the player improves the shuttle is striked but still in haste with power but not much thought goes into placing directing or controlling the stroke. With practice & and coaching these factors improve.

The same principal applies to tennis or football. Some players seem to have ample time, skill and options as to what to do with the game then others. Obviously the game like in tennis is the same for both sides. Court may vary but sides are switched between games.

Although the projectile and times may be the same human talent abiltiy aptitude is all very different. This leads to the treatment of time being different.

One hour to the unemployed is not the same as one hour to busy person say a parent with four children.

Hence altough time may be absolute constant as we define it or as it exists with its unique attributes, it's treatment and perception by every person is not the same.

Ultimately time would not exist if we as individuals didn't exist. Hence the individual determines the existence of time, how it is perceived and how it is treated or applied.

 

[new_trader]

Let me put it to you this way.....time...the passage and use of time....is flexible.

Time.....does not subject itself to a harness...the harness put on time is artificial.

When a ship moves through the water, it leaves behind it a wake.

The wake is caused by the ship moving forward.

The wake does not push the ship at all even though in daydreaming observation devoid of applied thought it may appear to do so, for the sake of illustration.

Therefore as time is flexible, imprisoning it and dividing it into equal segments is also artificial. The segments do not qualify the time or its use, although it seems so.

Having been given a glimpse of the idea that time is not rigid as many are misdirected or seduced to believe or assume, you now have the germ of an idea of additionally it being malleable by virtue of it being flexible.

I now leave you to ponder on this very powerful axiom.

I will remind you...in case you have not encounterd my posts before today....that an axiom is a fundamental truth....and for you to ponder on the magnitude of this purely intangible concept, but a very real one nevertheless.

Socs,

I am not entirely sure if I agree with you on this, or better to say that I am questioning what you have written.

Citations from wikipedia:

An axiom is a proposition regarded as self-evidently true and forms the foundation upon which other propositions are built. Much like the axioms “The whole is greater than the part” or “Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another”. To axiomatize a system of knowledge is to show that all of its claims can be derived from a small set of sentences that are independent of one another.

Saying that "[time] is malleable by virtue of it being flexible." is an axiom is not (imo) correct because it isn't self evidently true, well not to me at least. It requires me to accept the notion that time isn't rigid.

All the examples given so far by people in this thread demonstrate that the perception of time changes depending on what an individual is experiencing, but that doesn’t mean time itself is being altered. An example would be someone sat in a dentists chair for 1 hour undergoing root canal therapy whilst another person, during that same hour, enjoys a number of thrill rides at an amusement park. The first person may say that hour felt like days, whilst the second person may say that hour flew by and felt like a second. There is no way one can prove by observation or experiment whether that hour was actually altered in any way. A third person, who did nothing but look at their watch, may say that the hour took exactly 60 minutes to pass. Einstein’s special relativity, which has been verified experimentally, overthrows Newtonian notions of absolute space and time by stating that distance and time depend on the observer, and that time and space are perceived differently, depending on the observer.

In your ship example where you say “The wake does not push the ship at all even though in daydreaming observation devoid of applied thought it may appear to do so, for the sake of illustration.”

It would be valid to say that the ship is moving through the water, but it would be equally valid to say that the ship is stationary and the water is moving past the ship. Neither prove that time is flexible.

Any thoughts?

 

[new_trader]

Yes but.....it just does not land....no matter from what angle you give a gentle nudge....nope...no go...

Socrates,

After reading the ION dialogue I am compelled to ask you a question...just to see if I have interpreted it correctly...

Do you consider yourself an artstic trader or an inspired trader?

My guess is artistic

 

[trendie]

I have to agree with grantx, re: CYOFs statement that he knows nothing, yet feels comfortable to suggest some are not thinking correctly.
To suggets that someone is not looking at an issue with the right viewpoint implies a standpoint of knowing something that is right or wrong.
(sorry if grantx didnt actually say this, but was the gist, over the past few pages)

I am with grantx, in the sense that we are being pulled in a certain direction.

In the context of the pdf image, which we are to turn 90degrees, CYOF has suggested he will state what the "answer" is, if someone asks.
Can I categotically state, please provide the "answer" as to what we are to "see".

Also, I am not sure if I am thinking correctly, since there have been a couple of posts quoting Ouspensky, a philosopher that I made a remark about previously! Am I on the right track regarding time, and perception? Or were the Ouspensky quotes merely used to keep some people hooked?

http://home.cfl.rr.com/mpresley1/PDO.html

If anyone is interested in esoteric knowledge, of the "hermetic" variety, in the sense that the turning base-lead into gold of the old alchemists was, to the simple and uninitiated about acquiring wealth, but to the initiated an anology of purifying the mind to reach higher levels of understanding, (which is what seems to be happening here), I suggest reading the occultist books by Cornelius Agrippa.
( I wonder how long before quotes from that start to appear)

 

[SOCRATES]

I’m generally trying to stay clear of this thread, as it’s all a bit incoherent for my simple scientists brain. However I thought Id comment on the issue of time, from perhaps a more practical perspective.

I’m sure most people will have experienced extremes in at least their own personal perception of time. Anyone who’s unfortunate enough to have been involved in an automobile accident has probably experienced time appearing to slow right down. Now what might be interesting is that these types of experiences are generally accompanied by a heightened perception and awareness, which in many cases allows the driver to take evasive action which under normal circumstances they would be incapable of.

Conversely, time can appear to move very quickly, for example when you’re involved in an enjoyable pursuit, and in these cases, any sense of awareness generally diminishes.

Clearly we are capable of switching between these two states, perhaps not at will, and for most of us we are probably unaware of the trigger that causes the shifts between these two quite polorised states, but I see no reason why it isn’t a skill that could be developed. I don’t really want to discuss how this relates to trading, as it’s something I am extremely uncomfortable with, but I am prepared to at least consider the idea that any technique that heightens perception, and provides lucidity in thinking, could perhaps be of benefit.

A formula one driver for example is probably capable of adopting either of the mental states described above, and one is clearly more beneficial to the task at hand than the other. The same may well be the case for traders, but Id respectfully submit it isnt a prerequisite to success.

regards
zup

The discomfort you suffer is a result of the constraints you put upon yourself as a consequence of your perception, your humanistic perception, that is.

 

[SOCRATES]

Why does this sound so much like SOCRATES?

Hmmmm.....odd....isn't it ?

 

[SOCRATES]

Very interesting. If I may add from a laymans view with respect to how one responds to events and treatment of time based on the sport of badminton, tennis or football. Usually, people who are competitive often get quite excited about scoring the point.

For example the speed at which a shuttle **** falls or flies from the air due to it's structure is an interesting one for a projectile - in terms of change in speed and flight path.

When a shuttle is falling straight down from above beginners usually start out by missing to hit it. This is not because they don't have the stroke or time but because in the excitement they react too quickly and swing before the approrpriate time. Professional players not only get into position quickly but have ample time to consider their options, take the shot and place it. With beginners as the player improves the shuttle is striked but still in haste with power but not much thought goes into placing directing or controlling the stroke. With practice & and coaching these factors improve.

The same principal applies to tennis or football. Some players seem to have ample time, skill and options as to what to do with the game then others. Obviously the game like in tennis is the same for both sides. Court may vary but sides are switched between games.

Although the projectile and times may be the same human talent abiltiy aptitude is all very different. This leads to the treatment of time being different.

One hour to the unemployed is not the same as one hour to busy person say a parent with four children.

Hence altough time may be absolute constant as we define it or as it exists with its unique attributes, it's treatment and perception by every person is not the same.

Ultimately time would not exist if we as individuals didn't exist. Hence the individual determines the existence of time, how it is perceived and how it is treated or applied.

Yes, and the very skilled badmington player who plays at championship level does somethng more, doesn't he ?

He anticipates more accurately than is the norm for his peers.

His championship status hinges directly on his abilty to anticipate ( and take advantage of this faculty ) and his ability to act according to his expectancy ( correct execution ).

 

[SOCRATES]

Socs,

I am not entirely sure if I agree with you on this, or better to say that I am questioning what you have written.

Citations from wikipedia:



Saying that "[time] is malleable by virtue of it being flexible." is an axiom is not (imo) correct because it isn't self evidently true, well not to me at least. It requires me to accept the notion that time isn't rigid.

All the examples given so far by people in this thread demonstrate that the perception of time changes depending on what an individual is experiencing, but that doesn’t mean time itself is being altered. An example would be someone sat in a dentists chair for 1 hour undergoing root canal therapy whilst another person, during that same hour, enjoys a number of thrill rides at an amusement park. The first person may say that hour felt like days, whilst the second person may say that hour flew by and felt like a second. There is no way one can prove by observation or experiment whether that hour was actually altered in any way. A third person, who did nothing but look at their watch, may say that the hour took exactly 60 minutes to pass. Einstein’s special relativity, which has been verified experimentally, overthrows Newtonian notions of absolute space and time by stating that distance and time depend on the observer, and that time and space are perceived differently, depending on the observer.

In your ship example where you say “The wake does not push the ship at all even though in daydreaming observation devoid of applied thought it may appear to do so, for the sake of illustration.”

It would be valid to say that the ship is moving through the water, but it would be equally valid to say that the ship is stationary and the water is moving past the ship. Neither prove that time is flexible.

Any thoughts?

I stated that an axiom is a fundamental truth in order to keep the idea as sinple as possible, because for the purpose to which it is put within the context of what I venture to explain so far and no further, it is sufficient.

With regard to the rest of the above post, not all individuals are the same or posess the same faculties.

 

[SOCRATES]

Socrates,

After reading the ION dialogue I am compelled to ask you a question...just to see if I have interpreted it correctly...

Do you consider yourself an artstic trader or an inspired trader?

My guess is artistic

Inspiration may be fleeting, whereas art is permanent.

 

[Charlton]

Creative thinking

This has been a most amusing thread which has taken all sorts of twists and turns. Like many I like a good old philosophical conversation from time to time.



The theme of the thread is How to think correctly. Just as you might study price action over different time-frames, step back and study this thread. Study it sometimes in detail and at other times step back and see its movements to and fro, sometimes racing along and sometimes dawdling or even stopping for a period.



A trader develops through a series of stages – familiarisation with initial trading concepts, deeper reading of numerous and often conflicting views and onto development of one’s own style and strategy.



The early stages of student development comprises, largely, regurgitation of other peoples’ works, but there comes a point when original thinking steps in. It might not be, at first, original thinking with regard to the subject’s entire knowledge base, but it is at least original to the thinker himself.



This is a creative act.



This is thinking correctly.



So how is it done ? It requires, as the structure of this thread shows, an acquistion of ideas and knowledge followed by a distillation of the true essence of the market. This involves more than simply logical, deductive processing, but also perception.



Perception is above and beyond knowledge (of the mechanical sort), because it contains an intuitive element.



Ironically this leads to a simplification of the knowledge gained from the logical deductive process, because we can begin to cast away extraneous facts and see things as they really are.



This thread, although fascinating in its detail, serves to show how getting bogged down in philosophical detail detracts from the central theme of thinking correctly.



It’s simplicity that counts. It’s avoiding “not seeing the wood for the trees”.



It’s looking at charts or market depth with an original and creative eye, based on a firm foundation of TA knowledge, but without being over-burdened with excess TA baggage.



In a past post by Socrates he mentioned how he burnt all of his trading books one summer afternoon. CYOF has recently mentioned how he is giving many away free. Mr. Marcus has returned to posting with what appears to be a much simpler message.



Only when the shackles of misdirection and analysis-paralysis are cast aside can one really release energy for trading and look at the market in an act of creation. An act that results in the creation of profit.



Charlton

 

[SOCRATES]

This has been a most amusing thread which has taken all sorts of twists and turns. Like many I like a good old philosophical conversation from time to time.



The theme of the thread is How to think correctly. Just as you might study price action over different time-frames, step back and study this thread. Study it sometimes in detail and at other times step back and see its movements to and fro, sometimes racing along and sometimes dawdling or even stopping for a period.



A trader develops through a series of stages – familiarisation with initial trading concepts, deeper reading of numerous and often conflicting views and onto development of one’s own style and strategy.



The early stages of student development comprises, largely, regurgitation of other peoples’ works, but there comes a point when original thinking steps in. It might not be, at first, original thinking with regard to the subject’s entire knowledge base, but it is at least original to the thinker himself.



This is a creative act.



This is thinking correctly.



So how is it done ? It requires, as the structure of this thread shows, an acquistion of ideas and knowledge followed by a distillation of the true essence of the market. This involves more than simply logical, deductive processing, but also perception.



Perception is above and beyond knowledge (of the mechanical sort), because it contains an intuitive element.



Ironically this leads to a simplification of the knowledge gained from the logical deductive process, because we can begin to cast away extraneous facts and see things as they really are.



This thread, although fascinating in its detail, serves to show how getting bogged down in philosophical detail detracts from the central theme of thinking correctly.



It’s simplicity that counts. It’s avoiding “not seeing the wood for the trees”.



It’s looking at charts or market depth with an original and creative eye, based on a firm foundation of TA knowledge, but without being over-burdened with excess TA baggage.



In a past post by Socrates he mentioned how he burnt all of his trading books one summer afternoon. CYOF has recently mentioned how he is giving many away free. Mr. Marcus has returned to posting with what appears to be a much simpler message.



Only when the shackles of misdirection and analysis-paralysis are cast aside can one really release energy for trading and look at the market in an act of creation. An act that results in the creation of profit.



Charlton

What you describe and you describe it very well, is the journey.

You have to endure the journey before you can reach your destination.

Arriving and remaining at the destination is a very different experience and a very different way of being.

Being at the destination is when the real wonders reveal themselves.

What do I mean by "way of being" ?

Those who have experienced this know exactly what I mean.

 

[rols]

Thanks for that Charlton. Very well written post.

I'd invite you to the bonfire but it's already alight.

I'm still waiting for the punchline to this thread (there isn't one - remember Monty Python's world's funniest joke sketch)

We have seen much wondrous knowledge exhibited here, arcane and otherwise. How can this be applied on a practical level for the every day retail trader wanting to earn his crust who doesn't have a spare ten years to travel the yellow brick road to enlightenment.

I won't quote Alice again, although it is tempting. Perhaps Socs may find it more difficult to resist such an invitation?

Yesterday I was given a DVD of the Da Vinci Code movie saying it was one of the best films ever made!!

I'm skeptical about the film, the book and the dogma, but I'm gonna go and watch it anyway.....

Just before writing this I arrived at the end of Act 1 of Goethe's Faust.
The last line rather stuck in my mind....

MEPHISTOPHELES (hoisting Faust on his shoulders):
That's that. To burden oneself with fools, you see,
In the end does even the devil injury.