OANDA Forex Forum

A history of transparency

OANDA hosts one of the longest-standing forex forums on the web. Since June 2000, our forum has given forex traders a vehicle for sharing views, airing grievances, and learning from each other. Membership in the OANDA Forex Forum comes with searchable access to diverse topic threads dating back to the very first forex forum posts.

Join in on the discussion with fellow OANDA traders by signing in with your existing fxTrade or fxTrade Practice account. If you don’t already have a forex trading account with OANDA, you can begin by registering for one today.


#1 Dec. 16, 2006 01:47:00

aquifer
Member
Member #10334
From: California
Registered: 2006-11-14
Posts: 1852
Reputation: +  0  -
Profile  

Innovating Visionaries

This is my thought of the week:

If grand conspiracies are indeed rare, as many have suggestively written, then the primary conductors of our society must be the innovative visionaries. I think the word 'innovative' is important here, because I see impotent visionaries are commonplace. Hey, I'm a visionary!..but perhaps not a primary conductor of society.

At least as an exercise, I would like to move my focus from conspiracy belief towards that of identifying and understanding innovative visionaries.

Comments, please!


Store your nuts, little squirrel.

Offline

#2 Dec. 17, 2006 22:02:00

Strazi
Member
Member #7924
From: Houston, TX
Registered: 2006-03-08
Posts: 1333
Reputation: +  0  -
Profile  

Innovating Visionaries

What would define a visionary as?


The World Is What We Make Of It

Offline

#3 Dec. 17, 2006 22:39:00

belial
Member
Member #2830
From: houston,tx, usa
Registered: 2003-09-07
Posts: 1822
Reputation: +  0  -
Profile  

Innovating Visionaries

quote:
Originally posted by Backenstein:
This is my thought of the week:

If grand conspiracies are indeed rare, as many have suggestively written, then the primary conductors of our society must be the innovative visionaries. I think the word 'innovative' is important here, because I see impotent visionaries are commonplace. Hey, I'm a visionary!..but perhaps not a primary conductor of society.

At least as an exercise, I would like to move my focus from conspiracy belief towards that of identifying and understanding innovative visionaries.

Comments, please!

Thanks for providing something fresh to babble about while we wait for the wiggle on the chart to move more vigorously.

I deeply appreciate it.

Grand conspiracy theorists may not be or ever become primary conductors of society, but all conductors of society, worthy of mention, must be grand conspiracy theorists.

This is long-held bias.

Let's move on to innovative visionaries.

It seems to me that most of the innovative visionaries, whom I know, are not primary conductors. But innovative visionaries are sometimes or often grand conspiracy theorists.

The problem seems to be a disconnect between innovative visionaries and primary conductors of our society.

I'm not sure how to get them together.

Perhaps we shouldn't try yo get them together, rather we should try to find somebody who unites the qualities of the innovative visionaries and the conductors.

A word of caution about conductors.

They are all very greedy. So, watch out, because conductors often rip-off or cheat innovative visionaries.

Offline

#4 Dec. 17, 2006 22:45:00

belial
Member
Member #2830
From: houston,tx, usa
Registered: 2003-09-07
Posts: 1822
Reputation: +  0  -
Profile  

Innovating Visionaries

quote:
Originally posted by Strazi:
What would define a visionary as?

A visionary is one who sees things that you have the good fortune of not being able to notice.

And visionaries are either congenital or drug-induced.

The latter are more numerous and popular.

Offline

#5 Dec. 18, 2006 02:48:00

aquifer
Member
Member #10334
From: California
Registered: 2006-11-14
Posts: 1852
Reputation: +  0  -
Profile  

Innovating Visionaries

Perhaps we can cite examples. Let's take a look at Mr. Ford. I'm a bit isolated from resources right now to have time to research this one, but my understanding is that he didn't invent the first automobile powered by an external or internal engine, but he was the innovator. Nowadays, most people just believe that he was the inventor as a result. He was the one who came up with a workable design, planned and implemented mass manufacture, and apparently pulled strings to ensure a great market would develop. Recently, an acquaintance of mine explained that Mr. Ford was responsible for the suburban design of today's America, which requires a car to move about town, but supposedly offers safer streets for children to play in (I guess a study refutes that last bit.) I guess he also purchased a lot of local and regional train right-of-ways and decommissioned them, all to ensure a brisk automobile market.

Please discuss this and offer more concrete examples of the innovative visionaries.

I'm sorry if I don't get back to the Internet soon, but I'm swaggering through the streets of New Zealand at present, and my FX positions are relatively static. Will someone post at least one message per day, so I can find this thread when I log back on? Thank you in advance.

Oh, and I would say that a visionary is simply someone who is able to define what the future should, can, or otherwise will be.


Store your nuts, little squirrel.

Offline

#6 Dec. 18, 2006 03:31:00

Strazi
Member
Member #7924
From: Houston, TX
Registered: 2006-03-08
Posts: 1333
Reputation: +  0  -
Profile  

Innovating Visionaries

Backenstien....

I find your progressive theory motivating and similar to my own. Skeptical and somewhat dissapointed with the current setup of worldly politics/interaction, yet understanding of it, and willing to change it for the better.

The innovative visionary actually seems to be the quintescence of what I strive to be. We must discuss this further......


The World Is What We Make Of It

Offline

#7 Dec. 20, 2006 21:46:00

aquifer
Member
Member #10334
From: California
Registered: 2006-11-14
Posts: 1852
Reputation: +  0  -
Profile  

Innovating Visionaries

Hi Strazi! I found the thread. The South Island of New Zealand is beautiful.

I have to say that I am pretty disappointed in the participation in this thread. Maybe everyone is out for the holidays?

[Written after the latter body was written: In a discussion of innovating visionaries, It is my fantasy to have participants reach or attempt to reach some level of agreement on just what a future world or slice of the world should look like, and to possibly identify real-world examples of how this vision could be made a reality. The following, then, would be my first concern discussed for the remainder of this posting: is the ladder we are climbing on the right wall?]

Well, I guess that my primary concern regarding innovating visionaries is whether or not their future effects have a beneficial or detrimental effect on participants: let's say all people and the ecosystem. [Warning: The following is largely intended for agnostic, religion-neutral, humanistic, Gnostic, non-dogmatic, secular, open-minded-free thinking members of all religions, or otherwise atheistic readers; the author (me-self) would appreciate the avoidance of a discussion of religious/dogmatic references, as it is likely to kill constructive discussion in, what my opinion is, the real world.)

I have been struggling to understand the deep meaning of the terms 'evil' and 'good' of late. My personal experiences of recent days do not paint myself as either, yet both; I would like to return to these personal comments in a bit, because I think it may be important that a reader understands where I am coming from on a personal level. For now, here is someone's list of the most 'evil' and the most 'good' figures from history:

http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/good.html

Can we include the personalities presented therein, such as Pol Pot or Abraham Lincoln in our list of innovative visionaries? I would say so, as I'm assuming both figures, both knew what their vision was, knew how profound it was, established a plan, took action, and saw it through. Unfortunately, in the case of both, there are elements of good and evil, as I understand it. [It is very important, right here, that at reader understands that this writing is a personal journey into philosophy, and does not accurately portray my personal opinion, nor a promotion of any PC concept, thank you.] In the case of Pol Pot, one could argue the 'good' as being reduced population and order. In the case of Abraham Lincoln, perhaps one could argue that the 'evil' was the causation and possible deliberate instigation of total war and all resulting calamaties.

Now that list was supposed to be extreme cases, good examples, yet I can argue both elements in all of the characters!

Now personally: Riding through the sheep-filled valleys of the NZD, I couldn't help but feel just evil. I love to eat lamb! Yum! I mine as well grab the butcher knife on these lovely creatures. Look, I have no intention of giving up this source of meat from my diet. Now I feel a bit bad, however. O.k., let's say that I simply give up the feeling, the emotion of guilt? Done. I kill, I eat. Sounds like I'm satan himself, then, right? Well, not at all, I am embracing the reality that I live in, not ignoring it. I heard that an ostrich farmer in Austrialia has never seen as ostrich bury its head in the sand after 30 years! Why do we humans look the other way from reality?

Next, there is an antique shop in CHC with an old dog out front on what appears to be most business days. I suppose I love that poor old thing, as when I passed it the other day and saw that is was shaking from the cold wind and rain, I opened up my coat just to give it warmth from my dry shirt and hand. It stopped shaking after it looked up at me (to either see me with its old glazed eyes, or to smell me, I don't know, but a well-know sign of affection from dogs.)

Why the hell did I care to do that? I had forgotten that this would be embarassing if anyone would see my tenderness. This was self-less. I'm not evil at all, I'm a kind, loving person.

FINALLY! Here's what I think: the terms 'good' and 'evil', I prefer, should be substituted with the terms 'desirable' or 'undesirable' respectively, as they approximate to these terms by the intention of writers and speakers. The terms 'evil' and 'good' seem to loose all value upon analysis, and are often used to falsely motivate or otherwise manipulate audiences. 'Desirable' would be an adjective used to describe "that which promotes life," and 'undesirable' would be used to describe "that with discourages life."

Unfortunately, I have never found another person to go along with me on that one. Even I use the terms 'good' and 'evil' for seemless, expedient communication.

To conclude this rant about my primary concern in evaluating innovating visionaries, I would hope that the vision passes the primary criterion: IS THE VISION NEARLY UNEQUIVICALLY DESIRABLE? Does it support the future life of man and the ecosystem, while ensuring quality of life for nearly all?

If you made it this far: Thank you; sincerely, thank you.

P.S. Maybe I should get a dog. [Big Grin]


Store your nuts, little squirrel.

Offline

#8 Dec. 20, 2006 22:14:00

aquifer
Member
Member #10334
From: California
Registered: 2006-11-14
Posts: 1852
Reputation: +  0  -
Profile  

Innovating Visionaries

P.S. The likes of H.H. Holmes turns my stomach. There is 99.99999% 'evil' in that one, and anyone like him should be promptly put to sleep! Capital punishment all the way.

I suppose for philosophical argument's sake: maybe he didn't act alone in his experiments or clearly in supplying organs for medical use, yet I digress to conspiracy theory to identify a trace amount of 'good' cooperation from him.


Store your nuts, little squirrel.

Offline

#9 Dec. 21, 2006 16:56:00

War-Mech
Member
Member #3055
From: Toronto, Canada
Registered: 2003-11-12
Posts: 806
Reputation: +  0  -
Profile  

Innovating Visionaries

Ok, i would not put Great Khan into that list...
IMHO the term good and evil are not correct. the correct terms are Favourable and Unfavorable and for who? for example something can be favorable to me and unfabvarable to another person the extent of those degrees and personal perspective will switch it around. The rest is up to the power of persuation and propaganda (not in "evil" sence) A lot of historical events one the element of praise is removed does not qualify as extrimly evil and on the opposite if the element of shame is removed people are not really evil. If you take the Great Khan for example. the fact of the matter is that he was a conquror just like many befor him he was just better at it then anyone ever lived. it is recorded in many arabic and chinese writings that his actions were not to terrorise people but to unite the world under one hanate(country) so there will be no more lil kings fighting against each other.


Us geniuses don't get information, us geniuses make information.

Offline

#10 Dec. 21, 2006 18:42:00

john47935
Member
Member #6093
From: NYC
Registered: 2005-07-15
Posts: 595
Reputation: +  0  -
Profile  

Innovating Visionaries

quote:
Originally posted by Strazi:
I find your progressive theory motivating and similar to my own. Skeptical and somewhat dissapointed with the current setup of worldly politics/interaction, yet understanding of it, and willing to change it for the better.

The innovative visionary actually seems to be the quintescence of what I strive to be.

I like this thread!
I believe that we each have a certain view of perfection, whether artistic, political, moral, etc. and that we also have a drive within ourselves to unleash that onto the world in order to make the world more perfect. I would even go so far as to say that doing so is our purpose in life.

However, the environment that we live in will in some ways shape the vision that we have, and in other ways will prevent us from ever being able to unleash that vision. We all have the drive and the potential within us, but most do not have the inward confidence in their vision nor the boldness to "beat the system" and show the world what they have to offer. Very few will ever do that.

Conservatives tend to put too much emphasis on the individual, whereas liberals are more likely to blame the environment for the success or failure of individuals. I feel that BOTH are correct, and that the interplay between the two factors (internal and external) are what determine a person's path in life.

The need for at least some of these innovators to be able to do their thing is fundamental to mankind. I think that is the reason why facism and other oppressive regimes always have and always will fail in the long run, because they choke off individualism.

A "good" society will give enough freedom to its people so that innovative genius can develop, but at the same time will do what it needs to do to provide the social structure necessary to give that genius an outlet in which to diffuse his ideas or creations, It will also provide for the needs and protection of individuals in a rational way so that they can develop their genius rather than worrying about the basic necessities of survival.

I think that Western civilization does all of that better than anything else being offered today as well as better than any civilization in history ever has, which is why I believe in its superiority and believe that it represents progress.

[ December 21, 2006, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: JayDee ]

Offline

Board footer

Moderator control

Powered by DjangoBB

Loading nanoRep