Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
Best Way To Clean Yourself After Bowl Movement
WHO SPEAKS THE LANGUAGE IN YOUR LANGUAGE IN PRAISE
"You can have many myths, many stories. That's what counts. Do not fare well who has the ability to have only the stories and myths collective"
(Odo Marquard)
It has the impression of understanding what it means to speak their language perfectly, especially when you meet a stranger. In particular, this happens even when years and years in Italy have not scratched anything in his Italian sui generis. If you think not just isolated cases of Shel Shapiro, Heather Parisi and Dan Peterson has always served in an Italian to express the "Laurel and Hardy," then you realize how to speak our language well needed in other words, other sounds and intonations. From this experience with foreign speakers who are non-existent words, which articulate the sounds in their own way and giving the melody a bit 'ridiculous their sentences, it is considered to obtain full knowledge of what the role of language teachers foreign: to ensure that students suspend their usual way of finding words and forming sounds and get used to find and train others. The student, he argues, must first of all to learn - at least for the time of the lesson - forget how to speak normally and go up to a phase of his life when he could not use the privileges of verbal language. The student takes in short, the ideal conditions for language learning, it is believed, though for a while 'is able to pretend to be a child who does not know what the words and how one can pronounce.
This intuitive consideration suggests that there is a big difference between learning, for example, quantum physics or the doctrine Keynes' economic theory or system
Luhmann and a foreign language. In the first case the acquisition of new knowledge requires the activation of prior knowledge, putting into play their knowledge, their awareness and knowledge of its practice, the effort in the latter, priority would be to put aside everything you sa. In the first case is to be who you are, even to enhance it, in the latter, in the best way to simulate what is not and can never be, namely a native speaker. They spoke as already in the womb because his hearing was impressed by certain sounds and rhythms and how the first words, for example, mom dad hunting, delivered in that language. And the primary experience with what happens when we speak - the complacency, remembering, lying, promise, and so on - has made them in that language. Those who study a foreign language has gained experience with but must be other words and other sounds, in short, has a different past. If you want to learn a foreign language then you need the ability to acquire in a simulated a biography than their own. It is, in other words, requires the ability to find a substitute for a practice that language could not be charged, the substitute, in short, a life of others. Given that no human being is allowed to repeat all Whenever he wants his first encounter with the language and the experiences it offers, learning a language, in his experience as a surrogate can only act as compensation for what is no longer accessible
The ability to speak a foreign language is a kind of expertise that compensates for an obvious, natural incompetence: that in all the languages \u200b\u200bof the world other than in his native. A surrogate can ensure the best possible replace the original, but it can never be truly and perfectly the same. It goes without saying then that you can not wander to achieve the goal of perfection and completeness of the native speaker each time you start to study and speak a foreign language. The approach to it rather must maintain a degree of relaxation: as is humanly possible to start life anew every time it is considered good and useful, you can not even reach the proficiency of a native speaker. We can do wonderfully understood by the interlocutor, you can even cheat on their linguistic identity conversations more or less long, if you really are virtuosos in the reproduction of the sounds of other languages \u200b\u200band if you enjoy the pleasure of exhibiting their skills . The linguistic distance between the native and the foreigner can not be remedied, however, in no case at all. Learning can ensure best simulation possible, but can not substitute for the original experience despite the exercise, will, attitude and also a long experience, so to speak, on the ground. There can be expressed in a language only a simulation of human imperfection, never with the original perfection.
The reason for such a peremptory statement is evident already in the simple observation that there is no perfect language. No one can learn a language perfectly because even among the natives there are many ways of speaking, each perfect in its way. A language is not contaminated by differences in possession of the men before they were seduced by their vanity by building a tower to reach heaven, to approach the divine. But a language that unifies all people by eliminating the differences, a language that is not corrupted by the discrepancy makes everything intelligible and understandable, is a language you do not like the gods because it gives man the illusion of possession of a perfection can not belong to him. That is why God inspired man in front of the vanity of the completeness of its instrument of communication, has disrupted the uniformity of its language, it has corrupted the dispersing unit perfection in countless variations. In this way, however, the man returned to him his prerogatives, privileges inaccessible to the rest of the deity is the difference particularity, uniqueness, the uniqueness.
The teaching and learning a foreign language that aspires to reach the perfection of the native speakers are inspired by the vanity of the men of Babel that attract divine intervention designed to confuse their tongues, to differentiate them in their complexity. Those who cultivate the desire to adapt perfectly to the original model, to blend with the natives, can not rely on deceptive language, far from that with which the speaker has to deal daily foreign: the so-called standard language, so an artificial language fair pronounced by announcers television or in Hollywood movies. The experience with the reality language of a country, for example, Anglophone, immediately destroys the illusion of its existence. As soon as you are confronted with an Australian or an Indian, or even with someone in London or Dublin, we find that the language learned with so much waste of energy and possibly including, but is not spoken by native speakers: the pitch is and also many other items are. Obviously it is inaccessible to those after the divine intervention at Babel, the ability to smoothly adapt to the ways of talking about other people. It is a language standard is an artificial product that can only feed the vanity and the illusion of being able to rely on uniformity and completeness foreign to the human condition. So the question naturally arises as to why they commit so much energy in acquiring skills inaccessible, why you want to repeat the failure of the myth of Babel ignoring biblical teaching.
As in countless human affairs is also the intent to adapt as their perfect expression in a language standard to obtain approval to speakers of another language, is marked by contradictions and paradoxes. On the one hand it acts the natural tendency to simplify, to the shortcut, the make-up. The ambition of the intent in fact hides a deception and self-deception: the standard language is taught how to concentrate all their forces in search of a wallet under a lamppost although it is known to have lost along the dark street. Hurl themselves in the difficult business to learn the language perfectly standard only because it is accessible, clear and consistent, not because it is actually spoken. There is only so conforms to its rules, not the words and intonation of the speakers. And here is also manifested the intention paradoxical that you said only a foreigner is asked to comply strictly with a uniform, a native speaker can easily find the words and articulate the sounds that are proper. Only a stranger has the mammoth task of ensuring the certainty of being understood by others, to use a language of the same characteristics of what the men spoke before the Their idea of \u200b\u200bbuilding the Tower of Babel, only to him, therefore, is required to eliminate any possibility of misunderstanding. It is weird to do at least daily experience inability to communicate with our fellow neighbors and then claim the maximum intelligibility when speaking with a foreigner.
Learning a foreign language, if we are serious about pursuing the purpose of dialogue and exchange, requires more than courage to face the differences of the efforts of uniformity. Requires more than the ability to flex their own behavior and the ability to adapt to fixed models. The meetings and exchanges with foreigners require the bringing into play oneself, particularities of its filtering, which can only filter through the "imperfections" of its expression. The offer of its strangeness and difference is a terrific opportunity to deepen communication misunderstandings can be addressed only if they arise. The opportunity to clarify, to explain, to investigate what was believed of course, is the great advantage offered by the collision of imperfect understanding. Also eminently practical goals such as selling cheese or describe an innovative machine tool, I assume an exchange between partners who have no interest in hiding. For this reason it is not only permissible but even desirable for a Modena or Reggio Calabria or Ancona, speak English as it can and must speak a Modena a Reggio and Ancona. If the prosody of an Australian or an Indian identity is the track to meet and realize it is essential to interact with him properly, so can an Italian with confidence and courage to articulate sounds contaminated by the unequivocal language of its melody . Moreover unjust authority which could be considered a right that London or Dublin or speak Welsh in their own way and prevent this prerogative to a Modena or Reggio Calabria or Ancona?
one who is preparing to study a foreign language should not forget that the language, like all events human - and the Bible is right to remind us - is subject to deviations and metamorphoses: only God is immutable and languages, like all things human, are exposed to conditions that make them mutable over time and space. Their viability as an instrument for encounter and dialogue is indeed guaranteed by contamination from abnormal, by disagreements, from imperfections. The deviations from what authorities prescribe the rule, even the mistakes are more human than there is in it and it should be ensured that the language retains all his human powers. You can not always count on the God of the Bible that intervenes to restore to man his humanity every time he alienates. 
"You can have many myths, many stories. That's what counts. Do not fare well who has the ability to have only the stories and myths collective"
(Odo Marquard)
It has the impression of understanding what it means to speak their language perfectly, especially when you meet a stranger. In particular, this happens even when years and years in Italy have not scratched anything in his Italian sui generis. If you think not just isolated cases of Shel Shapiro, Heather Parisi and Dan Peterson has always served in an Italian to express the "Laurel and Hardy," then you realize how to speak our language well needed in other words, other sounds and intonations. From this experience with foreign speakers who are non-existent words, which articulate the sounds in their own way and giving the melody a bit 'ridiculous their sentences, it is considered to obtain full knowledge of what the role of language teachers foreign: to ensure that students suspend their usual way of finding words and forming sounds and get used to find and train others. The student, he argues, must first of all to learn - at least for the time of the lesson - forget how to speak normally and go up to a phase of his life when he could not use the privileges of verbal language. The student takes in short, the ideal conditions for language learning, it is believed, though for a while 'is able to pretend to be a child who does not know what the words and how one can pronounce.
This intuitive consideration suggests that there is a big difference between learning, for example, quantum physics or the doctrine Keynes' economic theory or system
Luhmann and a foreign language. In the first case the acquisition of new knowledge requires the activation of prior knowledge, putting into play their knowledge, their awareness and knowledge of its practice, the effort in the latter, priority would be to put aside everything you sa. In the first case is to be who you are, even to enhance it, in the latter, in the best way to simulate what is not and can never be, namely a native speaker. They spoke as already in the womb because his hearing was impressed by certain sounds and rhythms and how the first words, for example, mom dad hunting, delivered in that language. And the primary experience with what happens when we speak - the complacency, remembering, lying, promise, and so on - has made them in that language. Those who study a foreign language has gained experience with but must be other words and other sounds, in short, has a different past. If you want to learn a foreign language then you need the ability to acquire in a simulated a biography than their own. It is, in other words, requires the ability to find a substitute for a practice that language could not be charged, the substitute, in short, a life of others. Given that no human being is allowed to repeat all Whenever he wants his first encounter with the language and the experiences it offers, learning a language, in his experience as a surrogate can only act as compensation for what is no longer accessible
The ability to speak a foreign language is a kind of expertise that compensates for an obvious, natural incompetence: that in all the languages \u200b\u200bof the world other than in his native. A surrogate can ensure the best possible replace the original, but it can never be truly and perfectly the same. It goes without saying then that you can not wander to achieve the goal of perfection and completeness of the native speaker each time you start to study and speak a foreign language. The approach to it rather must maintain a degree of relaxation: as is humanly possible to start life anew every time it is considered good and useful, you can not even reach the proficiency of a native speaker. We can do wonderfully understood by the interlocutor, you can even cheat on their linguistic identity conversations more or less long, if you really are virtuosos in the reproduction of the sounds of other languages \u200b\u200band if you enjoy the pleasure of exhibiting their skills . The linguistic distance between the native and the foreigner can not be remedied, however, in no case at all. Learning can ensure best simulation possible, but can not substitute for the original experience despite the exercise, will, attitude and also a long experience, so to speak, on the ground. There can be expressed in a language only a simulation of human imperfection, never with the original perfection.
The reason for such a peremptory statement is evident already in the simple observation that there is no perfect language. No one can learn a language perfectly because even among the natives there are many ways of speaking, each perfect in its way. A language is not contaminated by differences in possession of the men before they were seduced by their vanity by building a tower to reach heaven, to approach the divine. But a language that unifies all people by eliminating the differences, a language that is not corrupted by the discrepancy makes everything intelligible and understandable, is a language you do not like the gods because it gives man the illusion of possession of a perfection can not belong to him. That is why God inspired man in front of the vanity of the completeness of its instrument of communication, has disrupted the uniformity of its language, it has corrupted the dispersing unit perfection in countless variations. In this way, however, the man returned to him his prerogatives, privileges inaccessible to the rest of the deity is the difference particularity, uniqueness, the uniqueness.
The teaching and learning a foreign language that aspires to reach the perfection of the native speakers are inspired by the vanity of the men of Babel that attract divine intervention designed to confuse their tongues, to differentiate them in their complexity. Those who cultivate the desire to adapt perfectly to the original model, to blend with the natives, can not rely on deceptive language, far from that with which the speaker has to deal daily foreign: the so-called standard language, so an artificial language fair pronounced by announcers television or in Hollywood movies. The experience with the reality language of a country, for example, Anglophone, immediately destroys the illusion of its existence. As soon as you are confronted with an Australian or an Indian, or even with someone in London or Dublin, we find that the language learned with so much waste of energy and possibly including, but is not spoken by native speakers: the pitch is and also many other items are. Obviously it is inaccessible to those after the divine intervention at Babel, the ability to smoothly adapt to the ways of talking about other people. It is a language standard is an artificial product that can only feed the vanity and the illusion of being able to rely on uniformity and completeness foreign to the human condition. So the question naturally arises as to why they commit so much energy in acquiring skills inaccessible, why you want to repeat the failure of the myth of Babel ignoring biblical teaching.
As in countless human affairs is also the intent to adapt as their perfect expression in a language standard to obtain approval to speakers of another language, is marked by contradictions and paradoxes. On the one hand it acts the natural tendency to simplify, to the shortcut, the make-up. The ambition of the intent in fact hides a deception and self-deception: the standard language is taught how to concentrate all their forces in search of a wallet under a lamppost although it is known to have lost along the dark street. Hurl themselves in the difficult business to learn the language perfectly standard only because it is accessible, clear and consistent, not because it is actually spoken. There is only so conforms to its rules, not the words and intonation of the speakers. And here is also manifested the intention paradoxical that you said only a foreigner is asked to comply strictly with a uniform, a native speaker can easily find the words and articulate the sounds that are proper. Only a stranger has the mammoth task of ensuring the certainty of being understood by others, to use a language of the same characteristics of what the men spoke before the Their idea of \u200b\u200bbuilding the Tower of Babel, only to him, therefore, is required to eliminate any possibility of misunderstanding. It is weird to do at least daily experience inability to communicate with our fellow neighbors and then claim the maximum intelligibility when speaking with a foreigner.
Learning a foreign language, if we are serious about pursuing the purpose of dialogue and exchange, requires more than courage to face the differences of the efforts of uniformity. Requires more than the ability to flex their own behavior and the ability to adapt to fixed models. The meetings and exchanges with foreigners require the bringing into play oneself, particularities of its filtering, which can only filter through the "imperfections" of its expression. The offer of its strangeness and difference is a terrific opportunity to deepen communication misunderstandings can be addressed only if they arise. The opportunity to clarify, to explain, to investigate what was believed of course, is the great advantage offered by the collision of imperfect understanding. Also eminently practical goals such as selling cheese or describe an innovative machine tool, I assume an exchange between partners who have no interest in hiding. For this reason it is not only permissible but even desirable for a Modena or Reggio Calabria or Ancona, speak English as it can and must speak a Modena a Reggio and Ancona. If the prosody of an Australian or an Indian identity is the track to meet and realize it is essential to interact with him properly, so can an Italian with confidence and courage to articulate sounds contaminated by the unequivocal language of its melody . Moreover unjust authority which could be considered a right that London or Dublin or speak Welsh in their own way and prevent this prerogative to a Modena or Reggio Calabria or Ancona?
one who is preparing to study a foreign language should not forget that the language, like all events human - and the Bible is right to remind us - is subject to deviations and metamorphoses: only God is immutable and languages, like all things human, are exposed to conditions that make them mutable over time and space. Their viability as an instrument for encounter and dialogue is indeed guaranteed by contamination from abnormal, by disagreements, from imperfections. The deviations from what authorities prescribe the rule, even the mistakes are more human than there is in it and it should be ensured that the language retains all his human powers. You can not always count on the God of the Bible that intervenes to restore to man his humanity every time he alienates.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Implantation Bleeding Way Before Period
infidelity '
between the values \u200b\u200bof which more than lamenting the decline, loyalty is no doubt that returns more often in the most obvious and daily complaints laudatores temporis acti, "once was enough to shake hands," a time the family was together because the couple were faithful, "" how many flags, how many turncoats are out there today "and so on in a long litany. What prevails is the idea that loyalty belongs to a past world to the good. The betrayal on the other hand belong to the contemporary world and would be a world of evil. On the side of loyalty there would be qualities that contribute to the common good as consistency, determination and selflessness, and help to make the happiest man as an individual and as a social being. On the side of treason but there would be opposite qualities, namely defects such as inconsistency, indifference, self-love that abbruttirebbero the individual and the human community to which it belongs.
In fact, the idea of \u200b\u200bloyalty, especially for couples, collecting, at least in words, always and in various contexts consensus. The high and ancient biblical word that requires the man to leave his father and his mother to join his wife in order to form an indivisible one flesh (Genesis 2:24) it can be confirmed even in the most pleasant of contemporary readings. The not so authoritative magazine Donna Moderna, for example, reported in early August 2010 a survey agency Swg that nine out of ten Italians say they believe strongly in loyalty.
In view of the universal prestige it enjoys and has enjoyed since the dawn of time loyalty, it is amazing that just an animal like the dog he has become the emblem. How, in fact, is the lowest estimate given to this animal by humans is demonstrated by the way they say none exists in which it has emphasized a minimal positive quality. All that concerns him is despicable: the die or live like him, lead him hither to the yard while asleep or awake, the kicking him or take him with respect instead of the master, straighten your legs or be his son. The language thus brings a significant mark of contempt by the men and paid it, by implication, that take account of the quality of fidelity to him explicitly assigned.
It is therefore logical to think that if the dog is a symbol of loyalty shows that the bottom is an intimate and explicit contempt for this quality of human character. The constancy, obedience and self-denial are characteristics of the dog evidently appreciated only in appearance. In truth, not so secretly, he mocks the lack of autonomy, blind obedience to the will of others, become the servant at all times. Moreover, a being who attacks the enemy for bias and, with the same blunt mechanism defends his friend, who is able to be a martyr just to please the master and is willing, for the same reason, to become instruments of the most monstrous atrocities certainly can not assert as a model worthy of imitation and example. As a human being who takes delight in his ability to judge can aspire to emulation those who decide once and for all what should be his behavior? It is rather to think of a computer is entered into a software immovable. No human being has a minimum of self-esteem can aspire to mimic a machine, no matter what happens, always completes the usual procedures.
a closer look, then, why humans do not take in their private account of the great virtues of fidelity, although the public who do not sing her praises, are not so objectionable. Already in the Middle Ages - an era in which perhaps as never before in any other ideal of loyalty has occupied the minds of men - The question is not so simple as it shows itself today in many public statements. Both in courtly poetry, both in Dolce stil novo the love song is a question of loyalty intimate and private, even secret: there is thus true love if it is lived in secret. And love is unfaithful to excellence, the clandestine love, which requires, paradoxically, a double allegiance: one that combines in secret and that which unites in love. The idea that loyalty is an aspiration, however, too high for those who rely only to human will expresses a great medieval poet as the author of Parzival , Wolframs von Eschenbach. This concludes that only rely on a religious dimension allows one to make full experience. To find the strength to be faithful man must get back to heaven, an instance that is higher. You then Spinosa, one of the most influential philosophers of modern thought, that the ideal of loyalty begins to waver under the pretense of human discern between different instances to trust. Not only the sky but the earth deserves unconditional acceptance of man that is that belongs to it. Although Machiavelli considered the same commendable fidelity, live with fairness and consistency, will retain the power to identify areas where human Viga the right to refrain from any practices which it has inspired. The exercise of power is one of them. The prince, who wants to achieve and maintain his power must have the quality dell'astuzia, not loyalty. The man of modern science then clearly we recognize the right to determine their behavior based on choice and autonomy to meet the objectives set by himself and by any other instance. Fidelity falls into disrepute because it deprives man of the privilege of human discernment to be left to forces beyond his will and his ability to disregard the wishes and plans. A faithful man is not in the hands of himself but of those to whom we surrender. The Baroque period
revealing a particular sensitivity for the transience of time, you open an examination of what the man disenchanted raves as durable. If human existence is so tenuous and fleeting as it may be anchored to what, as a pact of fidelity, relies on the stability and durability? In the Baroque drama, especially the German one, we debrief on the ambiguous and ephemeral nature of a relationship that is based on loyalty to excellence, the one between the prince and the leader. Their relationship is apparently only one between master and slave because it is true that the leader is to serve the prince is also true that he gets and consolidates his power leaning force of the first. Since Therefore, security and power of the prince is in the hands of the leader, they might at any moment turn against the same force that protects and supports it. The leader can be so faithful servant, but having every moment the possibility of breaking the pact of allegiance, in power on the existence of his master. The same security features that has within it the seeds of instability because the very one that I guarantee can escape at any time.
's covenant of faithfulness in love relationships has very different consequences on the balance of power between the lovers. The lover who satisfies the need for security of the beloved swearing everlasting loyalty, seized also the power to steal at will be sure that the offers. Each of the lovers attorney so the security of having the other at his side, but at the same time the leaves in the hands of others. This duplicity of supply and demand for loyalty become weapons for which one has more desire for power or is more desirous of independence. Who provides security grabs power in some respects very sneaky because it hides their need for certainty with the mask of love with certain expectations. No less insidious, actually, is the attitude of those who in the name of the authenticity of its feeling on the other hand requires the pact of fidelity. The gift apparently selfless love of the guarantee of balance and unique can be simply the intent to take possession of what the most popular of which want and need most: stability. It is, therefore, of a love that is nourished by the weakness of others, which stimulates and strengthens. The provision of security can not be an illusion because that then gives a gift which no mortal can possess: the certainty of what will be the conditions that must be changed each time the deal. Only the loss of the gesture to represent and ensure their loyalty, and its entry into the risky game, painful and subversive possibilities of betrayal, is a prerequisite for power choose, every time it shows the opportunity, gestures and attitudes faithful.
Describe a relationship built on loyalty as a means to adjust the balance of power, not on dialogue and negotiation of mutual needs and mutable. You do not need to convince, win, find points of contact: everything has to happen along the lines of decisions already taken. Where there are only terms to be followed there can be no dialogue and mediation behavior. The language that builds and revitalizes the report is sterile and anaffective law. For the true lover confessed that should nevertheless keep alive in themselves the power of human choice and risk, is unavoidable warn the first Eventually the precepts of slavery and its temptation to emancipation. It is unlikely that the path of liberation from the weight makes them indifferent to the sensitivity of the beloved. But infidelity, to the point, is simply the release by someone, not for themselves. Rather than the triumph of autonomy and individuality becomes a gesture forced, not free choice. Only someone who accepts his infidelity can freely choose and opt for loyalty. And it is immaterial whether this decision is as it were, protected by what his reason tells him is good and useful or instead arises from the risk - such as Levinas describes the experience of love - A leap in the dark, with a membership to another without claiming to know it in its fullness.
Moreover, even recent history, not just passed down from the writings of the past, shows how dangerous, even criminal, to base their behavior on a priori choice indifferent to the effects it produces. The assumption of duty of fidelity, it is revealed especially in the tragic events of the last century, turns out to be a devious ploy to lean on the stronger and get rid of the responsibility of a score on how they use its power. The act became futile in the name of principles above the individual will in no case, however, can not leave the weight of responsibility if the power turns out to be inhuman. The harm caused is indeed a faithful servant of evil "banal" occur in his abandonment of human faculty of understanding, discernment and action awareness. Not unlike in interpersonal relationships when the pact of loyalty is not conceived in the risk of a decision always be revised, if not then contemplate the possibility of betrayal, empty beings who shake their human prerogatives. A human being who wants to liberate themselves from the choice and the risk is not emancipated, but the unpredictability of their humanity. The violence of subversion in which he believes to escape with the mask of loyalty produces a far more violence radical, namely that suppresses the very thing that makes man more human: the responsibility of choice, the acceptance of the possibility of failure, rely on the unpredictability of becoming. The only possible fidelity is to the human condition and this form of loyalty requires the risk of numerous infidelities. 
"Kein Zweifel, der Hund ist treu. Aber Deshalb sollen wir uns ein Beispiel an ihm nehmen?
Er ist doch treu dem Menschen und nicht dem Hund"
Karl Kraus, 251/252 Fackel 39, Sprüche und Widerspruch
Er ist doch treu dem Menschen und nicht dem Hund"
Karl Kraus, 251/252 Fackel 39, Sprüche und Widerspruch
between the values \u200b\u200bof which more than lamenting the decline, loyalty is no doubt that returns more often in the most obvious and daily complaints laudatores temporis acti, "once was enough to shake hands," a time the family was together because the couple were faithful, "" how many flags, how many turncoats are out there today "and so on in a long litany. What prevails is the idea that loyalty belongs to a past world to the good. The betrayal on the other hand belong to the contemporary world and would be a world of evil. On the side of loyalty there would be qualities that contribute to the common good as consistency, determination and selflessness, and help to make the happiest man as an individual and as a social being. On the side of treason but there would be opposite qualities, namely defects such as inconsistency, indifference, self-love that abbruttirebbero the individual and the human community to which it belongs.
In fact, the idea of \u200b\u200bloyalty, especially for couples, collecting, at least in words, always and in various contexts consensus. The high and ancient biblical word that requires the man to leave his father and his mother to join his wife in order to form an indivisible one flesh (Genesis 2:24) it can be confirmed even in the most pleasant of contemporary readings. The not so authoritative magazine Donna Moderna, for example, reported in early August 2010 a survey agency Swg that nine out of ten Italians say they believe strongly in loyalty.
In view of the universal prestige it enjoys and has enjoyed since the dawn of time loyalty, it is amazing that just an animal like the dog he has become the emblem. How, in fact, is the lowest estimate given to this animal by humans is demonstrated by the way they say none exists in which it has emphasized a minimal positive quality. All that concerns him is despicable: the die or live like him, lead him hither to the yard while asleep or awake, the kicking him or take him with respect instead of the master, straighten your legs or be his son. The language thus brings a significant mark of contempt by the men and paid it, by implication, that take account of the quality of fidelity to him explicitly assigned.
It is therefore logical to think that if the dog is a symbol of loyalty shows that the bottom is an intimate and explicit contempt for this quality of human character. The constancy, obedience and self-denial are characteristics of the dog evidently appreciated only in appearance. In truth, not so secretly, he mocks the lack of autonomy, blind obedience to the will of others, become the servant at all times. Moreover, a being who attacks the enemy for bias and, with the same blunt mechanism defends his friend, who is able to be a martyr just to please the master and is willing, for the same reason, to become instruments of the most monstrous atrocities certainly can not assert as a model worthy of imitation and example. As a human being who takes delight in his ability to judge can aspire to emulation those who decide once and for all what should be his behavior? It is rather to think of a computer is entered into a software immovable. No human being has a minimum of self-esteem can aspire to mimic a machine, no matter what happens, always completes the usual procedures.
a closer look, then, why humans do not take in their private account of the great virtues of fidelity, although the public who do not sing her praises, are not so objectionable. Already in the Middle Ages - an era in which perhaps as never before in any other ideal of loyalty has occupied the minds of men - The question is not so simple as it shows itself today in many public statements. Both in courtly poetry, both in Dolce stil novo the love song is a question of loyalty intimate and private, even secret: there is thus true love if it is lived in secret. And love is unfaithful to excellence, the clandestine love, which requires, paradoxically, a double allegiance: one that combines in secret and that which unites in love. The idea that loyalty is an aspiration, however, too high for those who rely only to human will expresses a great medieval poet as the author of Parzival , Wolframs von Eschenbach. This concludes that only rely on a religious dimension allows one to make full experience. To find the strength to be faithful man must get back to heaven, an instance that is higher. You then Spinosa, one of the most influential philosophers of modern thought, that the ideal of loyalty begins to waver under the pretense of human discern between different instances to trust. Not only the sky but the earth deserves unconditional acceptance of man that is that belongs to it. Although Machiavelli considered the same commendable fidelity, live with fairness and consistency, will retain the power to identify areas where human Viga the right to refrain from any practices which it has inspired. The exercise of power is one of them. The prince, who wants to achieve and maintain his power must have the quality dell'astuzia, not loyalty. The man of modern science then clearly we recognize the right to determine their behavior based on choice and autonomy to meet the objectives set by himself and by any other instance. Fidelity falls into disrepute because it deprives man of the privilege of human discernment to be left to forces beyond his will and his ability to disregard the wishes and plans. A faithful man is not in the hands of himself but of those to whom we surrender. The Baroque period
revealing a particular sensitivity for the transience of time, you open an examination of what the man disenchanted raves as durable. If human existence is so tenuous and fleeting as it may be anchored to what, as a pact of fidelity, relies on the stability and durability? In the Baroque drama, especially the German one, we debrief on the ambiguous and ephemeral nature of a relationship that is based on loyalty to excellence, the one between the prince and the leader. Their relationship is apparently only one between master and slave because it is true that the leader is to serve the prince is also true that he gets and consolidates his power leaning force of the first. Since Therefore, security and power of the prince is in the hands of the leader, they might at any moment turn against the same force that protects and supports it. The leader can be so faithful servant, but having every moment the possibility of breaking the pact of allegiance, in power on the existence of his master. The same security features that has within it the seeds of instability because the very one that I guarantee can escape at any time.
's covenant of faithfulness in love relationships has very different consequences on the balance of power between the lovers. The lover who satisfies the need for security of the beloved swearing everlasting loyalty, seized also the power to steal at will be sure that the offers. Each of the lovers attorney so the security of having the other at his side, but at the same time the leaves in the hands of others. This duplicity of supply and demand for loyalty become weapons for which one has more desire for power or is more desirous of independence. Who provides security grabs power in some respects very sneaky because it hides their need for certainty with the mask of love with certain expectations. No less insidious, actually, is the attitude of those who in the name of the authenticity of its feeling on the other hand requires the pact of fidelity. The gift apparently selfless love of the guarantee of balance and unique can be simply the intent to take possession of what the most popular of which want and need most: stability. It is, therefore, of a love that is nourished by the weakness of others, which stimulates and strengthens. The provision of security can not be an illusion because that then gives a gift which no mortal can possess: the certainty of what will be the conditions that must be changed each time the deal. Only the loss of the gesture to represent and ensure their loyalty, and its entry into the risky game, painful and subversive possibilities of betrayal, is a prerequisite for power choose, every time it shows the opportunity, gestures and attitudes faithful.
Describe a relationship built on loyalty as a means to adjust the balance of power, not on dialogue and negotiation of mutual needs and mutable. You do not need to convince, win, find points of contact: everything has to happen along the lines of decisions already taken. Where there are only terms to be followed there can be no dialogue and mediation behavior. The language that builds and revitalizes the report is sterile and anaffective law. For the true lover confessed that should nevertheless keep alive in themselves the power of human choice and risk, is unavoidable warn the first Eventually the precepts of slavery and its temptation to emancipation. It is unlikely that the path of liberation from the weight makes them indifferent to the sensitivity of the beloved. But infidelity, to the point, is simply the release by someone, not for themselves. Rather than the triumph of autonomy and individuality becomes a gesture forced, not free choice. Only someone who accepts his infidelity can freely choose and opt for loyalty. And it is immaterial whether this decision is as it were, protected by what his reason tells him is good and useful or instead arises from the risk - such as Levinas describes the experience of love - A leap in the dark, with a membership to another without claiming to know it in its fullness.
Moreover, even recent history, not just passed down from the writings of the past, shows how dangerous, even criminal, to base their behavior on a priori choice indifferent to the effects it produces. The assumption of duty of fidelity, it is revealed especially in the tragic events of the last century, turns out to be a devious ploy to lean on the stronger and get rid of the responsibility of a score on how they use its power. The act became futile in the name of principles above the individual will in no case, however, can not leave the weight of responsibility if the power turns out to be inhuman. The harm caused is indeed a faithful servant of evil "banal" occur in his abandonment of human faculty of understanding, discernment and action awareness. Not unlike in interpersonal relationships when the pact of loyalty is not conceived in the risk of a decision always be revised, if not then contemplate the possibility of betrayal, empty beings who shake their human prerogatives. A human being who wants to liberate themselves from the choice and the risk is not emancipated, but the unpredictability of their humanity. The violence of subversion in which he believes to escape with the mask of loyalty produces a far more violence radical, namely that suppresses the very thing that makes man more human: the responsibility of choice, the acceptance of the possibility of failure, rely on the unpredictability of becoming. The only possible fidelity is to the human condition and this form of loyalty requires the risk of numerous infidelities.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Digital Playground Free Vid
Heart Pablito ...
Number one: in order to haul ... Small
Number two: big waves
Number three: the wind cliff
Number four: wind bushes
Number five: my father's sad networks
Number Six: Addolorata bells, with a priest
number seven: the starry sky island . Bello, however, I had not ever realized that it was so beautiful ..
Number eight heart of Pablito
Mario Ruoppolo,
Neruda's Postman (Il Postino) 
Number one: in order to haul ... Small
Number two: big waves
Number three: the wind cliff
Number four: wind bushes
Number five: my father's sad networks
Number Six: Addolorata bells, with a priest
number seven: the starry sky island . Bello, however, I had not ever realized that it was so beautiful ..
Number eight heart of Pablito
Mario Ruoppolo,
Neruda's Postman (Il Postino)
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Tinted Cervical Mucus
IN PRAISE OF DISAGREEMENT
There is a concept deeply rooted in the collective imagination of the discussion that has little to do with the experience, namely the idea that be discussed to understand and to agree. The question of because there is broad consensus on it in spite of continuing removes stains that must suffer daily, is a very complex matter. Only a child who went to buy shoes to the market with the mother may perhaps be found in this memory as soon as a plausible explanation. A trading market as they did once may perhaps be unaware of the model underlying this view is dominant but an illusion of a debate. Both parties, in fact, successfully concluded the negotiations in general and came out to them so happy. The trader asked our mother to 10 000 pounds, she gave it 3 and in the end, after a tug of war that could also be long (at the time was no time!) leaving them to him for 6. The trader was very pleased because he had obtained much of the real value of the shoes. Was also satisfied with our mother because he could boast of having saved less than 4 dollars.
Every time we get a good pace to argue with someone, guide us, there is deluded, the good intention of meeting by coming to an agreement, just as happened to the market once. We know we have different opinions from our party, but nevertheless, or perhaps because of this, we take the trouble to esporgliele and we do it as if we were able to abandon them easily in order to reach an agreement. Apparently, that is just for fun, not prey so seriously our views. Just as obviously, we do not - again just for fun - even those of others so seriously. In fact, it is the seriousness with which we consider what we are saying to your ability to hear the reasons of others. If the trader had taken seriously and had continued to claim the 10 thousand pounds would not sell many shoes. If we truly intend to meet our partner we are well aware of how the discussions take us as it were the hand and lead us to assume positions always a bit 'extreme of what might be and, therefore, views that do not belong altogether. More a topic is important to us, the more we discuss with heat, and less we wonder if you really think what you are saying. In reality we see very rarely that happens in our minds as we speak, we realize how rarely there to step back and draw the necessary conclusions from this.
The merchant and our mother not only knew well that they began to talk about defending an indefensible position, but he also admitted. Except that they did implicitly, that communicate through the availability to sell some of their initial position in order to successfully conclude the transaction. Our discussions on different issues - the sense of poetry to that of a declaration of Berlusconi - will conclude instead almost always with the increase, with the exasperation of our initial positions. Should therefore be accepted that in general there is no question to find an agreement but to expose, if not impose their own views independently of the others. To do this in the most convincing way possible we are sometimes tempted to turn away from what we actually think.
For it is precisely the contradiction to stimulate our minds in the search for even stronger arguments in defense of our views. The discussion with others is more then to take the distances to get closer to their position. But not only that normally produces a distancing ourselves from what you might think.
All this is not necessarily a bad thing, indeed, beyond good and evil, is what normally happens in a discussion and realizing it could have very positive aspects of communication.
Leaving aside the case, perhaps more frequently, that you begin a discussion with the intention of remaining silent to win by any means (even then contradicting themselves), we must ask if it could be enough good will to change their minds, or to acquire one that is the result of a well thought-out mediation between what we believe and what we believed our party. There are obviously countless matters on which you can easily find consent and that, therefore, exclude a discussion, for example if it is or is not raining (yet again the desire to stay at home instead of going for a walk can give the impression that only two drops of rain have already ). Other matters just a bit 'more complex, such as who is the greatest of Montale and Ungaretti, can not be clearly decided how to do it with a glance out the window. Should talk about it, draw their own experiences and knowledge, remember verses and comments. How can, we must ask ourselves, reach the same conclusions if everyone has read different things at different times, in all contingencies of the details, thanks to their own unique sensitivity and its unpredictable memory processes? Even if you were in agreement on the superiority, for example, Montale the reasons for that opinion must necessarily be different and this is where we found that not agree more and it becomes necessary to lay down the discussion of new distances .
We also also the case that matters very limited and partial one decides to read the same things, to access the same information and the same comments. The way they intend, however, will depend in turn on our readings and experiences. They understand the fact things in life, poetry for example, based on what is already known. For this reason there are so many views and So many opportunities for discussion. We should change the past of each of us, having lived all the same experiences. This, of course, is not a thing neither possible nor desirable.
Since the harmonic model consists of discussion on the example of buying shoes for our mother to the market can not find adequate application in common practice, would be much more useful, and dialogue, to get any time to discuss openly arguing for Thus the deepening differences with our party. The cognitive and ethical value of this conception of the discussion is uneven first recognized the necessity of having to admit to being influenced clearly the contradictory in the sense of exasperation, radicalize, their point of view. Thus one can understand that discussions are mainly used to "prove" an opinion, to see if it is okay if the "shield" our thoughts, not necessarily to acquire, own it and take it for so long until it is consumed. It will then calm and time to think about and eventually discover the need for new readings and new thinking. It is therefore inappropriate to want to continue the discussion for so long until there has been agreed. Cut short the dispute (not necessarily violent interruption of course) is much more of a successful artificial harmony perhaps more often dictated by fatigue, or the need to do other things rather than actual ability to understand one another. The order to better understand themselves and others can be reached much more easily if one meditates on the distance and if you are not subsiding in imaginative harmonies. It is, in terms only apparently paradoxical, to prolong the time of for so long that it may investigate the reasons for a calm and relaxed. The trace left by the disagreement is much more profitable for an illusory harmony of thought and will. This is because, even in seemingly paradoxical, the dialogue can begin only when the caller ceases to lead us in the opposite position, ie where it away. A possible approach to the position of others may then begin when the discussion stops.
not so foreign to our dialogue is the ability to have consciousness conditioned by the contradictory opinions expressed, ie the awareness that the opinions expressed are not our thoughts but an attempt to represent them, a staging that occurs in specific circumstances and unrepeatable. Then even if our opinions do not fully express our thoughts, if you are being influenced by contingency, by way of communicating the interlocutor and so on, might as well try to see what happens if you formulate opinions of others, precisely those of our party. In short his voice to resonate within us, to think and argue as he would, is the most radical and more open dialogue. This, again, not to abdicate in what we are and think, but exactly the opposite reason: just getting to know the other person - not only as we see from the outside but from within, as he could perceive - we can better enforce our position. Learn how to bring the opponent to a dispute dialogue within ourselves, find it within us, is, or should be the ethical imperative of a debate whose aim is to explore new ways of seeing and understanding things in life. 
"Die Welt ist fort, ich muss dich tragen" (Paul Celan)
There is a concept deeply rooted in the collective imagination of the discussion that has little to do with the experience, namely the idea that be discussed to understand and to agree. The question of because there is broad consensus on it in spite of continuing removes stains that must suffer daily, is a very complex matter. Only a child who went to buy shoes to the market with the mother may perhaps be found in this memory as soon as a plausible explanation. A trading market as they did once may perhaps be unaware of the model underlying this view is dominant but an illusion of a debate. Both parties, in fact, successfully concluded the negotiations in general and came out to them so happy. The trader asked our mother to 10 000 pounds, she gave it 3 and in the end, after a tug of war that could also be long (at the time was no time!) leaving them to him for 6. The trader was very pleased because he had obtained much of the real value of the shoes. Was also satisfied with our mother because he could boast of having saved less than 4 dollars.
Every time we get a good pace to argue with someone, guide us, there is deluded, the good intention of meeting by coming to an agreement, just as happened to the market once. We know we have different opinions from our party, but nevertheless, or perhaps because of this, we take the trouble to esporgliele and we do it as if we were able to abandon them easily in order to reach an agreement. Apparently, that is just for fun, not prey so seriously our views. Just as obviously, we do not - again just for fun - even those of others so seriously. In fact, it is the seriousness with which we consider what we are saying to your ability to hear the reasons of others. If the trader had taken seriously and had continued to claim the 10 thousand pounds would not sell many shoes. If we truly intend to meet our partner we are well aware of how the discussions take us as it were the hand and lead us to assume positions always a bit 'extreme of what might be and, therefore, views that do not belong altogether. More a topic is important to us, the more we discuss with heat, and less we wonder if you really think what you are saying. In reality we see very rarely that happens in our minds as we speak, we realize how rarely there to step back and draw the necessary conclusions from this.
The merchant and our mother not only knew well that they began to talk about defending an indefensible position, but he also admitted. Except that they did implicitly, that communicate through the availability to sell some of their initial position in order to successfully conclude the transaction. Our discussions on different issues - the sense of poetry to that of a declaration of Berlusconi - will conclude instead almost always with the increase, with the exasperation of our initial positions. Should therefore be accepted that in general there is no question to find an agreement but to expose, if not impose their own views independently of the others. To do this in the most convincing way possible we are sometimes tempted to turn away from what we actually think.
For it is precisely the contradiction to stimulate our minds in the search for even stronger arguments in defense of our views. The discussion with others is more then to take the distances to get closer to their position. But not only that normally produces a distancing ourselves from what you might think.
All this is not necessarily a bad thing, indeed, beyond good and evil, is what normally happens in a discussion and realizing it could have very positive aspects of communication.
Leaving aside the case, perhaps more frequently, that you begin a discussion with the intention of remaining silent to win by any means (even then contradicting themselves), we must ask if it could be enough good will to change their minds, or to acquire one that is the result of a well thought-out mediation between what we believe and what we believed our party. There are obviously countless matters on which you can easily find consent and that, therefore, exclude a discussion, for example if it is or is not raining (yet again the desire to stay at home instead of going for a walk can give the impression that only two drops of rain have already ). Other matters just a bit 'more complex, such as who is the greatest of Montale and Ungaretti, can not be clearly decided how to do it with a glance out the window. Should talk about it, draw their own experiences and knowledge, remember verses and comments. How can, we must ask ourselves, reach the same conclusions if everyone has read different things at different times, in all contingencies of the details, thanks to their own unique sensitivity and its unpredictable memory processes? Even if you were in agreement on the superiority, for example, Montale the reasons for that opinion must necessarily be different and this is where we found that not agree more and it becomes necessary to lay down the discussion of new distances .
We also also the case that matters very limited and partial one decides to read the same things, to access the same information and the same comments. The way they intend, however, will depend in turn on our readings and experiences. They understand the fact things in life, poetry for example, based on what is already known. For this reason there are so many views and So many opportunities for discussion. We should change the past of each of us, having lived all the same experiences. This, of course, is not a thing neither possible nor desirable.
Since the harmonic model consists of discussion on the example of buying shoes for our mother to the market can not find adequate application in common practice, would be much more useful, and dialogue, to get any time to discuss openly arguing for Thus the deepening differences with our party. The cognitive and ethical value of this conception of the discussion is uneven first recognized the necessity of having to admit to being influenced clearly the contradictory in the sense of exasperation, radicalize, their point of view. Thus one can understand that discussions are mainly used to "prove" an opinion, to see if it is okay if the "shield" our thoughts, not necessarily to acquire, own it and take it for so long until it is consumed. It will then calm and time to think about and eventually discover the need for new readings and new thinking. It is therefore inappropriate to want to continue the discussion for so long until there has been agreed. Cut short the dispute (not necessarily violent interruption of course) is much more of a successful artificial harmony perhaps more often dictated by fatigue, or the need to do other things rather than actual ability to understand one another. The order to better understand themselves and others can be reached much more easily if one meditates on the distance and if you are not subsiding in imaginative harmonies. It is, in terms only apparently paradoxical, to prolong the time of for so long that it may investigate the reasons for a calm and relaxed. The trace left by the disagreement is much more profitable for an illusory harmony of thought and will. This is because, even in seemingly paradoxical, the dialogue can begin only when the caller ceases to lead us in the opposite position, ie where it away. A possible approach to the position of others may then begin when the discussion stops.
not so foreign to our dialogue is the ability to have consciousness conditioned by the contradictory opinions expressed, ie the awareness that the opinions expressed are not our thoughts but an attempt to represent them, a staging that occurs in specific circumstances and unrepeatable. Then even if our opinions do not fully express our thoughts, if you are being influenced by contingency, by way of communicating the interlocutor and so on, might as well try to see what happens if you formulate opinions of others, precisely those of our party. In short his voice to resonate within us, to think and argue as he would, is the most radical and more open dialogue. This, again, not to abdicate in what we are and think, but exactly the opposite reason: just getting to know the other person - not only as we see from the outside but from within, as he could perceive - we can better enforce our position. Learn how to bring the opponent to a dispute dialogue within ourselves, find it within us, is, or should be the ethical imperative of a debate whose aim is to explore new ways of seeing and understanding things in life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)