Well, as I assume most people have noticed the blog has a new layout. It was basically inspired by the new header which I found a few days ago. I hope everyone likes it.
I was going to say that I would give a prize for anyone who could guess the reference. But given that I don’t really want to give out prizes and anyone can simply Google the reference that seems like a bad idea.
How about this instead… The quote in the new header has a very large number of meanings for me; meanings tied up with the content of this blog. It is, as the linguists say, overflowing with polysemy — a signifier with a great deal of signifieds. The person with the best suggestion as to how it might be interpreted can, oh I don’t know, request me to write a post on any economic topic.
Make as many suggestions as you like. Suggestions for how the quote ties into the quote’s author’s own work are also more than welcome and will be considered on par with suggestions as to how it ties into the blog’s content.
Have fun!
Fixing the Economists 
Is it a quotation about Berkeley? And his philosophy of idealism?
It is not a direct quotation about Berkeley. But you’re right. It does have substantial overlap with his philosophy.
And the new layout looks great too.
“Totality…Order…Singularity, a dynamic progressions of ideas? a closed interpretive system? a puzzling expression of a tendency to realization? or 3 combinations of letters connected by 3 dots. . . As much as I’d like to look back on life and smile at various prizes earned by cleverness and minimal effort, confidence at not being perceived by others as a complete idiot also would be comforting.” Essays on Unintelligible Thought, Desires and Outcomes SPH
Why here? are Keynes’ example and choice of metaphor evaluating Newton substantive. It can be read and a general concept formed,but It might be asked what is missing? in context or content that also need be considered before making judgement. Is something missing? if so was it done intentionally and if intentional why? Why make a riddle to be solved in a sense that is cryptic? and assumes some point to be carried across when it is solved. All this seems to rapidly be getting very post-modern (in the uninitiated usage of the word). There’s something to be said for plain speaking, not requiring undefined assumptions to be made in order to communicate ones ideas clearly. I like to think that as a new header to this blog every time its author logs on to publish he’s reminded of what’s missing? as a caveat of the backwater where cryptology steers toward.
I enjoyed this speach very much, thank you! What I found particularly interesting was Keynes’ description of Newton as never using math until he had already figured out the answer to his question. Neoclassical economists obviously fail to realize that logical reasoning must come first, math second. Otherwise the math serves no purpose and will likely due much more harm than good, especially to the impressionable reader. Thanks again!
Yes. I think the speech says as much, if not more, about Keynes than it does about Newton!