#ciszaNocna

var sc_project=6452344; var sc_invisible=1; var sc_security="7bf45bfc";

[ciszanocna]

Visit Original Link

This Land Is Your Land feat. Bernie Sanders 

[ciszanocna]

You did not make me blind Thank you Lord You did not make me a hunchback Thank you Lord You did not make me a child of an alcoholic Thank you Lord You did not give me hydrocephalus Thank you Lord Not lame, stammering, a dwarf, epileptic, a hermaphrodite, horse, moss, or any specimen not human Thank you Lord But why did you make me a Pole?

 A Prayer and a Remonstration by Andrzej Bursa | (Was a) Deacon's Blog

[ciszanocna]

From: Cloudburst by Joshua Seidl

[ciszanocna]

“And so we know the satisfaction of hate. We know the sweet joy of revenge. How it feels good to get even. Oh, that was a nice idea Jesus had. That was a pretty notion, but you can't love people who do evil. It's neither sensible or practical. It's not wise to the world to love people who do such terrible wrong. There is no way on earth we can love our enemies. They'll only do wickedness and hatefulness again. And worse, they'll think they can get away with this wickedness and evil, because they'll think we're weak and afraid. What would the world come to?

But I want to say to you here on this hot July morning in Holt, what if Jesus wasn't kidding? What if he wasn't talking about some never-never land? What if he really did mean what he said two thousand years ago? What if he was thoroughly wise to the world and knew firsthand cruelty and wickedness and evil and hate? Knew it all so well from personal firsthand experience? And what if in spite of all that he knew, he still said love your enemies? Turn your cheek. Pray for those who misuse you. What if he meant every word of what he said? What then would the world come to?

And what if we tried it? What if we said to our enemies: We are the most powerful nation on earth. We can destroy you. We can kill your children. We can make ruins of your cities and villages and when we're finished you won't even know how to look for the places where they used to be. We have the power to take away your water and to scorch your earth, to rob you of the very fundamentals of life. We can change the actual day into actual night. We can do these things to you. And more.

But what if we say, Listen: Instead of any of these, we are going to give willingly and generously to you. We are going to spend the great American national treasure and the will and the human lives that we would have spent on destruction, and instead we are going to turn them all toward creation. We'll mend your roads and highways, expand your schools, modernize your wells and water supplies, save your ancient artifacts and art and culture, preserve your temples and mosques. In fact, we are going to love you. And again we say, no matter what has gone before, no matter what you've done: We are going to love you. We have set our hearts to it. We will treat you like brothers and sisters. We are going to turn our collective national cheek and present it to be stricken a second time, if need be, and offer it to you. Listen, we--

But then he was abruptly halted.” ― Kent Haruf, Benediction

[ciszanocna]

(via Chardin_attributs_musique_civile.jpg (833×637))

[ciszanocna]

(via Chardin_attributs_musique_militaire.jpg (820×625))

[ciszanocna]

But what are we to say of the likes of Haruki Murakami? Or Salman Rushdie? Or Jonathan Franzen? Or Jennifer Egan, or recent prize-winners like Andrés Neuman and Eleanor Catton, or, most monumentally, Karl Ove Knausgaard? They are all immensely successful writers. They are clearly very competent. Knausgaard is the great new thing, I am told. I pick up Knausgaard. I read a hundred pages or so and put it down. I cannot understand the attraction. No, that’s not true, I do get a certain attraction, but cannot understand why one would commit to its extension over so many pages. It doesn’t seem attractive enough for what it is asking of me.

How Could You Like That Book? by Tim Parks | NYR Daily | The New York Review of Books

[ciszanocna]

This mustard-based sauce tastes great with chicken and pork. See the recipe »

[ciszanocna]

From the Walloon point of view, the original “Booyah” was bouillon– a broth made from boiling a chicken with onion and celery, salt and pepper. The chicken was taken from the pot when sufficiently cooked and used as the main course of the meal, and the broth served in individual bowls. An additional bowl of rice was put on the table with each person adding what he wanted, if any, to the broth. This was related to me by a woman of Belgian descent, born in Kewaunee County in 1895, who lived to be 95 years old. As a young person, she had never seen the style of “booyah” as we know it today. With the Belgians’ penchant for frugalness, nothing was wasted. Bits of leftover vegetables gradually were added to the chicken broth– and later, the chicken, too– to make a more flavorful soup, almost a one-dish meal.

Booyah! « Mona Faye's Kitchen

[ciszanocna]

A Confession (1985) by Czeslaw Milosz My Lord, I loved strawberry jam And the dark sweetness of a woman’s body. Also well-chilled vodka, herring in olive oil, Scents, of cinnamon, of cloves. So what kind of prophet am I? Why should the spirit Have visited such a man? Many others Were justly called, and trustworthy. Who would have trusted me? For they saw How I empty glasses, throw myself on food, And glance greedily at the waitress’s neck. Flawed and aware of it. Desiring greatness, Able to recognise greatness wherever it is, And yet not quite, only in part, clairvoyant, I knew what was left for smaller men like me: A feast of brief hopes, a rally of the proud, A tournament of hunchbacks, literature.

[ciszanocna]

Methinks isn’t only archaic but also ancient. It’s in one of the oldest works in English, King Alfred’s translation before 899 of Boethius’ De Consolatione Philosophiæ, the Consolations of Philosophy. It was then two words, me thyncth (but then written me þincð, using the old characters thorn and eth).

World Wide Words Newsletter: 7 Nov 2015

[ciszanocna]

Piotr Adamczyk "Polskie strachy"

[ciszanocna]

Wszytkie też Artes liberales, zacząwszy od Grammatyki, aż do Teologii i Matematyki, Łaciną nie Polszczyzną uczącym się traduntur; bo by Polskiemi nieładnie i trudno były wyrażone. Skąd piękniej i składniej mówić z Łaciny Rhetoryka, niż Krasomówstwo, Philosophia, niżeli Miłość mądrości; Physica, niż Szkoła rzeczy naturalnych; Astronomia, niż Gwiazdarska nauka. W Muzyce też nie bez łaciny, na przykład tony, klawisze, konsonancja, są słowa z Łacińskiego języka. I gdyby Polacy (jako teraz invaluit Usus) Łaciny poniechawszy, albo Spolszczonych terminów, samą mówili i pisali Polszczyzną, musieliby się wrócić, do zarzuconej i nie zrozumianej Słowiańszczyzny owej w Pieśni Ś. Wojciecha znajdującej się: Już nam czas godzina grzechów się kajaci, BOGU chwałę daci &c., i do owych: drugdy, Basałyk, Lepak, Sypialnia miasto Dormitarza, jadalnia miasto Refektarza, chałupka miasto Celle, które są z Łaciny słowa. Nie pięknie by mówić Stolec Królewski albo Stolica, miasto: Tron Królewski; Stolec Sądowy główny, miasto: Trybunał; Biskupia czapka albo Xiążęca, miasto Infuła, Mitra. Nie bardzo by to gładki był Mówca albo Sekretarz, lub Patron z Lublina, piszący do swego Pryncypała taką samą Polszczyzną: Wypadło skazanie od Sądowego Stolca Lubelskiego; piękniej z Łacińska: Ferowany Dekret w Trybunale Lubelskim. Sprosta by to było bardzo: Nakazano w tej sprawie szukanie albo szperanie, miasto: inkwizycje. Piękniej się mówi: Miałem u Konfessjonału wielu Penitentów, niż: Miałem u spowiadalni wielu Pokutników. Czyliż to jest tych wieków gładko? Zalecam się W. Pana baczności, albo obzieraniu, ładniej podobno: Rekommenduję mię W. Pana respektowi. Nieładna to Phrasis: Otworzył się widok nieszczęścia nieraz w Polszcze, na które wielu w Europie było Patrzaczów. Ładniejsza ta z łaciny. Otworzyło się Theatrum nieszczęścia, na które wielu w Europie było spektatorów. Nie bardzo ładnie mówić: Będzie tego roku w Stolcu Sądowym Piotrkowskim wielu cierpiących. Czyż nie składniej z łaciny: będzie w tym roku w Trybunale Piotrkowskim wielu Pacjentów. Piękniej: Generał Artillerii, niż: Starszy nad Armatą &c, &c. Z racji ósmej tej Polacy Łaciny i innych Cudzoziemskich zażywają terminów, że są geniuszu i gustu Ateńczyków, którzy zawsze co lubili słyszeć i mieć nowego, i chwytać się jak Chameleon co raz różnych Kolorów, o co ich z Eremu Ś. Pawła wielki tak censuruje Moralista: Żupan odmienny, w tyle płócienny, przód atlasowy; Mody przedziwne co raz przeciwne w Dworskim ubierze, już niby z Grecka, już też z Turecka w szerokiej mierze &c. Dla ostatniej tej podobno racji Łaciny usum i innych języków mają Lechowie, iż żaden Naród tak gładko nie mówi, jak oni każdym, osobliwie Łacińskim językiem; nie mówią bowiem z Włochami: Redzina, ale Regina, ani tridzinta, quadradzinta, ale triginta, quadraginta; nie mówią Coniasco, ale cognosco, Dzienua miasto Genua. Nie psują Łaciny jak Niemcy i Francuzi, którzy Miasto JESUS Christus mówią JEDZUS Krystus, miasto Michael — Mikael, miasto charus — karus, miasto bibere — vivere, za Claustrum wymawiają Clostrum. Polak zaś tak gładko mówi po Łacinie, jak by się w owym urodził i wypielęgnował gnieździe, genus unde Latinum. Na ostatek Polski Naród jest to Gens culta, polita, wszelkich mądrości jak capax, tak plena, zaczym słusznie w Łacińskim języku gust ma i pokłada, bo według Mureta, Lingua Latina non Romanorum propria est, sed sapientum; toć jej zażywać ani levitas jest, ani vilitas w Polszcze.

Benedykt Chmielowski: Nowe Ateny...

[ciszanocna]

http://www.newyorker.com/cartoons/issue-cartoons/cartoons-from-the-november-2-2015-issue

[huggingthehorse-blog]

[mhsteger]

Ophidium Eel, Muraena, a print made in 1867 by Jonathan Couch, from his A History of the Fishes of the British Islands, 1867

A poem by Ogden Nash (born 19 August 1902; died 19 May 1971):

The Eel

I don’t mind eels

Except as meals.

And the way they feels.

[ciszanocna]

So in writing that the paradigm can guide the investigation also in the absence of rules and laws, Kuhn probably refers implicitly to the Kantian doctrine of the example in the third Critique, in paragraph eighteen. This is the first example I make of a philosopher trying to define the example. Kant refers to the exemplarity of the aesthetic judgment which needs the agreement of all men in the judgment, and which can be seen as an example of a universal rule which cannot be stated. So the example is the example of a rule which cannot be stated. The example, according to Kant, refers to an absent or unsayable law, and yet it does not dare to free completely the example from the empire of the law, of the rule. That’s why in the "Critique of Pure Reason" he writes that "examples are the crutches and the leading strings of a weak judgment. By a judgment, I mean that which can only understand the universal in abstractum and is unable to decide whether a concrete case is covered or not by the law." So here you have the bad side of Kant. I think that the concept of law is really the weak point in Kant’s thought.

http://www.egs.edu/faculty/giorgio-agamben/articles/what-is-a-paradigm/