Thursday, March 17, 2011
Wholesale Club Wear Dresses Eu
Shoe Trend 2011: National Exhibition
http://www.fashionblog.it/post/12637/tendenza-scarpe-le-stringate-di-repetto
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Where To Buy Wooden Fingerboards In New York
Banda Bassotti against broadband
The other day I heard on Massimo Gramellini TV saying the government has set aside funds already provided for broadband to digital terrestrial. I was impressed because it is a lot of money. These are a few that give news is that it is important to know to understand, once again, to whom we are governed.
http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2011/03/15/senza-banda-larga-a-causa-del-monopolio-tv/97680/ 
The other day I heard on Massimo Gramellini TV saying the government has set aside funds already provided for broadband to digital terrestrial. I was impressed because it is a lot of money. These are a few that give news is that it is important to know to understand, once again, to whom we are governed.
http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2011/03/15/senza-banda-larga-a-causa-del-monopolio-tv/97680/
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Pokemon Deluge Antigo
IN PRAISE OF PRAISE IN DARK
Many of us have had to deal with from an early age the reproach of not able to express ourselves clearly. "You speak and write more clearly," the teacher shouted at us with his stern look and signed in red with a "just enough", to little thoughts. "You can know what you tell me?" continued to ask his girlfriend first and then wife in front of our attempts to say anything clear at least the more mundane chores of everyday life. "Dad, I do not understand you, "was the phrase most often our children as soon as they realized that they have a thinking mind.
What then enjoy the clarity of great social and cultural prestige is testified to like about it, so say, is based on value judgments of a number of strikingly diverse disciplines and professions. Journalists, representatives, lawyers, teachers, doctors, clerks, politicians, ushers and so on, are good, they believe, if you explain in more simple and clearly as possible the affairs of their discipline and their work. In reality there are many reasons to consider that the clarity is, on the one hand, and overestimated the value the other hand, a weapon very violent and dangerous. A more careful consideration of the reasons that lead you to invoke and instincts that lead to demand from partners, enables us, in fact, to consider it critically, ie as a feature of verbal and written communication apparently able to facilitate understanding. You might also recognize the claim of clarity in certain circumstances, the will to use it as a mask to hide a pulse and a markedly authoritarian and violent. It is, in short, to expose what we actually want all those who demand clear and easily understandable words and ask if they will not hide a desire to dominate.
First we must ask questions about the plausibility of the reasons that lead to demand clarity in expression and argumentation, namely, in philosophical terms vaguely, if you can agree on a conception of language that rests in its transparency and its immediacy the premise and purpose of relational exchange. Mistresses and girlfriends, wives and children who insist on the point of clarity must necessarily believe that things of the world are already evident at the start and simply observe that we need to talk and to understand how they work. Not only that: they must also be convinced that the words clearly identify a reality and that there is already a consensus defined the conformation it assumes in the representation that gives us the language. It can therefore easily imagine how, at best, this radically unproblematic conception of reality and language that the document or explain, is generated by a clear epistemological naivete. We know very well, although sometimes it is convenient to forget that the world is not at all clear and logical and we need tools, such as language, to make it appear so. And we know then, although it is sometimes necessary to forget that words are not reality, but a means to represent and make, therefore, accessible to our understanding. Any representation, then, can only select, hide or highlight certain aspects of reality. The language always gives us a partial picture and perspective of the world even when it gets intersubjective consensus.
Those who do not understand us - or rather who refuse to accept not understand - then they run the risk, perhaps even unwittingly, to establish itself as inherently oppressive authoritarian model: the claim of clarity could hide the violent act to require everyone sees the world as we see them and that they give a representation corresponding to their way of expression. Under the guise of intelligibility may require, ultimately, that is talk to their words with those of their families and, therefore, may include without effort. Light is, in fact, what we understand and what we understand is also what is already known. The demand for clear words and things would then also hide unacknowledged mental sloth, laziness learning that inhibits the exploration of what is known beyond the borders. Authoritarianism and indolence report frequently to be hand in hand.
in the need for clarity, as in many violent behavior, you could see the symptom of a psychological weakness, in particular, may experience it as a symptomatic manifestation of insecurity. Clearly there are conformations so fearful of the psychological disorder that does not bear the slightest hint. And so they refuse to deal with the experience of chaos on them by a partner who, they say, would say things at random or irrelevant, or abstruse. It is therefore legitimate to suspect that they live in the minds of others waiting to find the same order that exists on their desk, in their drawers and in their libraries. The failure then to accept the possibility of different orders from them, would lead them to the arguments of an ethical and aesthetic based precisely guided by the clarity of expression and communication. That this mental process of removing their fears have its own opacity is twisted obviously an issue that may or may not want to face. However it is interesting to be surveyed critical beliefs that underlie the rejection of what appears to them as nonsense and chaos, most of the deepening of the psychological aspects that characterizes it. The most obvious and easily refuted belief is that simply means the dark as the negation of what is deemed clear. It - it is believed fallacy - would not have a foundation or its own reasons, but only destroy what others have laboriously built. It would, in short, a form of cannibalism because of the clarity that would live by eating other people product and return it in the dark.
In reality there is only one way to be clear and not a single way of being confused. Each schematization of reality, is that the simplification is that apparently should reproduce the chaos following its principles, its own order. This, then, that looks confusing and arbitrary as it may be ordered with its own logic, if you have the desire to linger in the observation and research. The pertinent question to ask yourself before darkness covers the principles, perhaps unknown to us, which is inspired and what is subjective expression. Incomprehensible speech should therefore be welcomed as an opportunity move the boundaries of what can be understood, to conceive different possibilities to introduce order and, in metaphorical terms, to walk in the direction of foreignness of our party. The suspend our conception of order and the delay in not understanding opens, in fact, a space to understand its uniqueness. The accept without anxiety not to understand, yet having to learn how to understand, should result in a wait undertaken to grant a representation of reality that you are not yet able to grasp the contours.
Darkness thus presents the advantage to recognize more clearly the subjective dimension of language and interpretive processes that implies: it is not the material logic of a system of encoded signs that must finally be understood, but the will of those who make use of these marks, a use that has some unique and unrepeatable. The subjective logic that underlies what we feel is clear and sensible inevitably fall into oblivion. The evidence of the way to forget the mediating function of language that carries with it the will of those who use it only as a trace, just as a suggestion. The immediacy with which it is clear that there reveals its meaning, illusion a certainty impossible - to have access to the actual intention of the speaker - and subtract the survey critical, since what we understand now is not under reflection. The reasons why the relevant questions about subjectivity, originality of those who express themselves, so many are in a clear text as they are in an obscure text.
clarity and obscurity are not ways to express themselves and to represent reality so different and so conflict between them, also clearly has its shadows, its secrets, only hidden them and makes it very difficult to identification. The darkness is a insidious dimension of clarity. To this can be a dangerous tool in the hands of those who want to impose as a general objective and that this binding, however, can always be special, subjective and worthy of critical response. The difference is rather in the function that gives expression and verbal communication. Proponents want the clarity of interpersonal understanding a thing that is obvious to happen every time you speak. Proponents of darkness, however, believe that understanding each other is a momentary thing that should be looked for and wanted every time you speak. One speaks when I think I understand something of the reality, others talk to understand something. 
"It is good and beautiful thing that you did not understand and what is even better when the new OCUR understanding makes it clear that you believed" (Friedrich Schlegel)
Many of us have had to deal with from an early age the reproach of not able to express ourselves clearly. "You speak and write more clearly," the teacher shouted at us with his stern look and signed in red with a "just enough", to little thoughts. "You can know what you tell me?" continued to ask his girlfriend first and then wife in front of our attempts to say anything clear at least the more mundane chores of everyday life. "Dad, I do not understand you, "was the phrase most often our children as soon as they realized that they have a thinking mind.
What then enjoy the clarity of great social and cultural prestige is testified to like about it, so say, is based on value judgments of a number of strikingly diverse disciplines and professions. Journalists, representatives, lawyers, teachers, doctors, clerks, politicians, ushers and so on, are good, they believe, if you explain in more simple and clearly as possible the affairs of their discipline and their work. In reality there are many reasons to consider that the clarity is, on the one hand, and overestimated the value the other hand, a weapon very violent and dangerous. A more careful consideration of the reasons that lead you to invoke and instincts that lead to demand from partners, enables us, in fact, to consider it critically, ie as a feature of verbal and written communication apparently able to facilitate understanding. You might also recognize the claim of clarity in certain circumstances, the will to use it as a mask to hide a pulse and a markedly authoritarian and violent. It is, in short, to expose what we actually want all those who demand clear and easily understandable words and ask if they will not hide a desire to dominate.
First we must ask questions about the plausibility of the reasons that lead to demand clarity in expression and argumentation, namely, in philosophical terms vaguely, if you can agree on a conception of language that rests in its transparency and its immediacy the premise and purpose of relational exchange. Mistresses and girlfriends, wives and children who insist on the point of clarity must necessarily believe that things of the world are already evident at the start and simply observe that we need to talk and to understand how they work. Not only that: they must also be convinced that the words clearly identify a reality and that there is already a consensus defined the conformation it assumes in the representation that gives us the language. It can therefore easily imagine how, at best, this radically unproblematic conception of reality and language that the document or explain, is generated by a clear epistemological naivete. We know very well, although sometimes it is convenient to forget that the world is not at all clear and logical and we need tools, such as language, to make it appear so. And we know then, although it is sometimes necessary to forget that words are not reality, but a means to represent and make, therefore, accessible to our understanding. Any representation, then, can only select, hide or highlight certain aspects of reality. The language always gives us a partial picture and perspective of the world even when it gets intersubjective consensus.
Those who do not understand us - or rather who refuse to accept not understand - then they run the risk, perhaps even unwittingly, to establish itself as inherently oppressive authoritarian model: the claim of clarity could hide the violent act to require everyone sees the world as we see them and that they give a representation corresponding to their way of expression. Under the guise of intelligibility may require, ultimately, that is talk to their words with those of their families and, therefore, may include without effort. Light is, in fact, what we understand and what we understand is also what is already known. The demand for clear words and things would then also hide unacknowledged mental sloth, laziness learning that inhibits the exploration of what is known beyond the borders. Authoritarianism and indolence report frequently to be hand in hand.
in the need for clarity, as in many violent behavior, you could see the symptom of a psychological weakness, in particular, may experience it as a symptomatic manifestation of insecurity. Clearly there are conformations so fearful of the psychological disorder that does not bear the slightest hint. And so they refuse to deal with the experience of chaos on them by a partner who, they say, would say things at random or irrelevant, or abstruse. It is therefore legitimate to suspect that they live in the minds of others waiting to find the same order that exists on their desk, in their drawers and in their libraries. The failure then to accept the possibility of different orders from them, would lead them to the arguments of an ethical and aesthetic based precisely guided by the clarity of expression and communication. That this mental process of removing their fears have its own opacity is twisted obviously an issue that may or may not want to face. However it is interesting to be surveyed critical beliefs that underlie the rejection of what appears to them as nonsense and chaos, most of the deepening of the psychological aspects that characterizes it. The most obvious and easily refuted belief is that simply means the dark as the negation of what is deemed clear. It - it is believed fallacy - would not have a foundation or its own reasons, but only destroy what others have laboriously built. It would, in short, a form of cannibalism because of the clarity that would live by eating other people product and return it in the dark.
In reality there is only one way to be clear and not a single way of being confused. Each schematization of reality, is that the simplification is that apparently should reproduce the chaos following its principles, its own order. This, then, that looks confusing and arbitrary as it may be ordered with its own logic, if you have the desire to linger in the observation and research. The pertinent question to ask yourself before darkness covers the principles, perhaps unknown to us, which is inspired and what is subjective expression. Incomprehensible speech should therefore be welcomed as an opportunity move the boundaries of what can be understood, to conceive different possibilities to introduce order and, in metaphorical terms, to walk in the direction of foreignness of our party. The suspend our conception of order and the delay in not understanding opens, in fact, a space to understand its uniqueness. The accept without anxiety not to understand, yet having to learn how to understand, should result in a wait undertaken to grant a representation of reality that you are not yet able to grasp the contours.
Darkness thus presents the advantage to recognize more clearly the subjective dimension of language and interpretive processes that implies: it is not the material logic of a system of encoded signs that must finally be understood, but the will of those who make use of these marks, a use that has some unique and unrepeatable. The subjective logic that underlies what we feel is clear and sensible inevitably fall into oblivion. The evidence of the way to forget the mediating function of language that carries with it the will of those who use it only as a trace, just as a suggestion. The immediacy with which it is clear that there reveals its meaning, illusion a certainty impossible - to have access to the actual intention of the speaker - and subtract the survey critical, since what we understand now is not under reflection. The reasons why the relevant questions about subjectivity, originality of those who express themselves, so many are in a clear text as they are in an obscure text.
clarity and obscurity are not ways to express themselves and to represent reality so different and so conflict between them, also clearly has its shadows, its secrets, only hidden them and makes it very difficult to identification. The darkness is a insidious dimension of clarity. To this can be a dangerous tool in the hands of those who want to impose as a general objective and that this binding, however, can always be special, subjective and worthy of critical response. The difference is rather in the function that gives expression and verbal communication. Proponents want the clarity of interpersonal understanding a thing that is obvious to happen every time you speak. Proponents of darkness, however, believe that understanding each other is a momentary thing that should be looked for and wanted every time you speak. One speaks when I think I understand something of the reality, others talk to understand something.
Turtle Wax Product In Banglore
Piero Calamandrei - Speech on the Constitution to students in Milan 1955
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)