How To Get Rid Of Broken Capillaries

Love - This Time Replica Conejetti

Buonanotte cari lettore!

Yes, I think I appear with some delay! Sure
delay because only today I will continue to posts Che Amore my friend competentíssimo Santtini writing!
I would like to share some "speculations," some "good senses" and even some things I learned in college or life.

I agree with many things said Santtini but disagree with others! Below I write a little of what I think and idealize a relationship.

First: Passion Love x.

Passion, as well described by Santtini, sums up that feeling of fullness when you're with the person and suddenly empty when you're away. It feels a little possessive, so even a little dangerous. Explosive, permissive and volatile, but undeniably delicious.
This is the passion present in all relationships seething in the first 3 to 4 months (this I learned in college classes in chemistry and physiology!).
Like any stimulus in our body, the passion is also due a chemical reaction! A smell, sound, touch, vision, all these stimuli can trigger the release of many substances in the body that will culminate in the neurotransmitters and the sensations they bring us, in short, the passion. And these stimuli are very specific to each one, after all, fell in love with different people, because we are different! Different is our chemical compatibility, unlike our trial is a good pair.

Now the passion is present in relacionemntos who has love, but we also do not have. Usually, if there is love, the relationship ends in a period not much greater than 3 months, which is when the explosion of passion subsides, and your body begins to return to homeostasis, or normal biorhythms!

"But Conejetti, and that is love?"

Well, there's a good question! And I did not learn this in college ...

Second: After the passion, now what?!

If your relationship survives the end of love (And if he survives, to say that lunch is over: for it is hard to do without the adrenaline of this!), What remains, ultimately, is love!
Love is nothing more than the serenity to accept the other, the camaraderie, pride, gratitude, intimacy.
Love is that feeling, even being in the same room without talking, you feel good and comfortable!
It's that feeling of pride, that feeling is mirrored in the person you are.
That feeling of torment for having done harm to the person beside you.
is the feeling so close he feels no shame. Do not feel shame for a stumble by one leaks, a bad joke or even a sudden nude (UI!) haha!

Then, every relationship is the common denominator passion. And it lasts, love is key! If not, the relationship is unsustainable.

Of course there are other factors, and be quite frank that they must exist!
Factors such as cultural, economic and geographic.

- It does not help you love a person who lives in New Zealand.
Either the person moves here, or you go there, or meet half way (In Fiji, more precisely!).

- There is no way you stay with someone who is very far away from its economic reality.
You do not go the same place, do not have the same tastes, you deprive yourself of things you like, or dipping is uncomfortable in some reality, I would say, more refined.

- Some cultures do not accept other as a couple, and that's a fact.

That's why I say that love alone is not enough ...
But the latter are well resolved, their relationship is more likely to succeed for a period Booom! Sometimes even for life.
Crisis? They exist! Always exist. But the game of his waist, letting go of rgulho and humor to help you pass by them!

Now, why 90% of relationships are doomed to failure?
Because of words like fear, laziness and lack, but these are for another post!

Abraccile!

Maxine Cartoon Shower Curtain

Para Ti Quero What?

Mio Dio!


It's Christmas ... But it was months past Christmas 2009?
seems huh? But it was last year, there are 365 days! No 30 ...

I'm afraid, I'm 24 years old and I already have this perception that time escapes me. From the time that I lack. In the 24 hours given me are not enough. Fear that is reflected in an absurd thought of "I will sleep less to lose no time." Folks, we got that nonsense? I love to sleep! Why will I give up something you love just to have more time?
More time for what?!

More time to get on facebook? To enter the corporate email and solve problems during your vacation? More time to enter the session cnn technology and to be aware of all the innovations? More time for news on cnn and consider myself a guy told? More time for news from around the world and try to speculate why does the stock market is falling when it should be going up?!

What happened to the meals take time, walked with the unpretentious, with the thrill of a good song in the car, with cycling in the park without a stopwatch, the time between one activity and another ... In short, what happened with the lines?!

I believe, to gain time in activities, we are killing the only part that gives us the impression of time, between the lines. The moments between activities. The reflective moment that I'm here now, nowhere else.

abhor this story of people multi-tasking. Multi-tasking is part of a Smartphone, not a daily life of a human being!
as you fill in worksheets in Excel, talking on the phone with his bank, he notes an address from google maps and you're thinking it's time to head out for lunch with his girlfriend, you do not participate in any of this! As you divide your mind, you do not pay attention to anything. And pay attention to their activities, and is synonymous with security and real learning, is also synonymous to attend these. What is the sense in making something if you do not participate?! You become a person who just reacts, but does not think or discern. In other words, you let go of the only caracteríastias that make you human.
The other is the dream.

With this history of ultra-speed, and I stress I repeat, we give the lines, only they are not addenda, are life itself! After all, life is what happens between the times in which we are not dreaming.


So, my question is: If
still have one hour 60 minutes a day is still 24 hours a week still has seven days, one year remains a year, human pregnancy lasts nine months continues, our still life cycle lasts 1 month and has yet to dream sleep lasts eight hours, why do we need to live at that pace so fast that time goes more in inertia and becomes increasingly more difficult to follow it?

Call me a complainer or 'old school' but I abhor this new world order. Our biological clock, nor our cognitive ability, was made for him. We can not fight against millions of years of evolution. Our life did not begin at birth, but with our evolutionary history that is as old as the planet itself.

Abraccile,

Harley Birthday Cards

On "Vorrede" Hegelian - Stefano Garroni -

The purpose , I propose, is to show how, in the dialectical perspective of Hegel (and Marx, the which, albeit with certain modifications, resumes and continues), the objective dimension the historical movement not only opposes the moment of subjectivity, but also makes it one of its essential component.

In this sense, we must recognize that short writings of the young Lukacs - like his Lenin other essay entitled What is orthodox Marxism - as opposed to that Marxism objectivist and scientistic it went gradually imposing itself in the Third International sign-in some ways-a kind of revenge on Plachanov Lenin, I am still able to give us a reflection of the dialectical perspective of recovery, particularly to the problems of time, which we live.

To do this I use a well-known and important text of Hegel, or even its Preface / Vorrede to Phenomenology of Mind, during which partial analysis, I will also show the essential consonances with the positions of Marx. Two final details.

In reality, we examine the totality of the Hegelian text, and hence the richness of the themes dealt with in it: we will rather to clarify (to try to clarify) what Hegel meant by this understanding of philosophy and how this act-this-understanding implicit mediation Logic and history, subjective and objective.

As you know, Vorrede Hegel begins with the statement that with respect to a philosophical writings, is not only unnecessary but also inappropriate and contrary to the purpose, precede a Vorrede, which claims to explain what purpose the author has placed and what would be its relationship with those who have already covered the same topic. [1]

is easy to understand the beginning of the Hegel's text, if we prsente that the purpose of Hegel is to underline a philosophical work that has a weight and a range of objective , they emerge as they that work takes place, it is clarified, is placed in historical context .

short, the philosophical work is an objective presence , whose meaning is objectively determinable through the understanding of its actual be placed in historical context.

From this point of view, even the opinion that the author himself may have about his work, will expire at the level of a particular belief and, therefore, an outlet position, always somewhat arbitrary. Understand the meaning of a philosophy involves, on the contrary, the historical trace-back and the end result that is reached, thus placing itself objectively, even in relation to other historical and current philosophies.

Which means, among other things, that philosophical truth can not be given in advance of the historical development of philosophy (and, therefore, did not even write a Vorrede sense, in the usual sense of term).

As he adds Hegel, philosophy, and universal intertwine with each other, if there are not one another, can rise to the mistaken belief that the essence of what is expressed in more depth, the purpose and ultimate results, in short, from end point, while the process through which the philosophy that just comes result is dropped, is neglected.

In this way, however, the philosophy, of which he is concerned, ends up dissolving into a generality, no determination and, therefore, something dead, crystallized, non-vital .

Taking advantage of what has been seen, we could say that the specific sense of philosophy, of which he is concerned, can never be caught if, in knowledge, separate from particular or universal, in other words, the end result , which that philosophy comes from historical process that has made this result possible. If we call

synchronic structure configuration, that philosophy assumes in its final outcome, and if we let diachronic process the way, the same philosophy must overcome to achieve that result, then we understand that Hegel is saying this: you do not understand a philosophy opposing historical process to its logical structure (or vice versa), it is understood only if these two elements (or dimensions) are captured in their interrelationship in their born from one another. [2]

certainly will not surprise if, at this point, I urge to reconsider the pages of Marx's methodological of 1857 to Introduction to the Critique of ' political economy, which is consonant with Hegel's argument, I think, even transparent. Let

the conclusion that, at this point, Hegel comes: according to my conception ( Einsicht )-he wrote-(concept which, of course, should and can be justified only by exposure of the same philosophical system) what matters ( Ankommen darauf ) is to conceive and express the truth, not as substance but as subject. [3]

Why is being a living substance, which is actually subject that-but it means the same thing-say, the subject is real as active ( wirklich ), to the extent that the movement is put himself or mediation with itself and becoming something else . [4]

How clear is this-for us-the central point, because it invites us to recognize the movement as a manifestation of goal center of activity, which is not random but is finalized, it is not only necessary (and, therefore, Hegel's expression of pure natural), nor is episodic or free because otherwise tends to result .

A place of business, therefore, is subject , because determined by the stress in his work to translate into actual existence an internal urge to certain results, fulfilling that which most deeply characterizes' essence of that place of business.

-Who-is organized by her, it moves, it relates takes place, not coincidentally-we know-but yes according to the result to be achieved under the conditions of development given here because the historical development and result are separable, but, well, that's why this place of business or, metaphorically, the movement goal, should be seen as a manifestation of a person who fills unfolding [5] . If, as we said, this is indeed the central reason for our thesis, then we try to deepen their understanding.

Another common error of conscience, says Hegel, is to see only contradictions in diversity of the many philosophical systems and this is because the difference is just exchanged one-to-consciousness coll ' opposition. [6]

In other words, just because the movement goal is subject, then grows and develops only in the battle, or rather, grows and develops, denying [7] constantly and overcoming the various phases or stages of progress, the various figures, in the making, is rising. It 's so that these various steps or figures are hunted, removed [8]

But these same steps or figures, certainly one hostile towards the 'other, exclusive one of the other, are not, however, stiffened in this mode of existence: in fact, they must be recognized, on the contrary, a nature fluid, such that, even in their mutual intolerance, they are revealed simultaneously, all moments of a same process, components of a same totality, therefore, not only denial of each other, but yes, even the one o'clock condition of existence other. [9] At this point, Hegel comes to another important conclusion.

The common consciousness, that sees only in the diversity and opposition that can not mediate logic and history in the real movement, but that is fixed, however, in the crystallization of ' one of the two (or the history of logic , identical or opposite, of the objective or the subjective ), is unable to penetrate the same thing, to understand the true essence, because the surface remains, as it closes in that eighth, in that perspective (religious, in fact [10] ) that for every goes a strict logic of identity and contradiction - in any sense of the term - is rigorously excluded.

To say it another way, the historical movement-that is, the product of complex relationships, conflict, and shall always auf Umwegen and never directly, the man with the members and the nature-, time we know it, because its different sides, the various contradictions, we see them as necessary items in the process.

which is subjective for this: as the historical movement in its dissonances, contradictions and disharmony, in fact, is humanity itself that goes on, leading, is humanity itself that the turning- nature and discovering new sides and possibilities-change and develop itself.

---

[1] - GWF Hegel, Werke 3. Phänomenologie des Geistes, Frankfurt / Main 1998: 11.

[2] - To use, do that here in synchrony and diachrony, cf. G. Della Volpe, On the dialectic, in G. Della Volpe, Works. Vol 6.

[3] - Hegel, op. cit.: 22.

[4] - Hegel, op. cit.: 23.

[5] - Even if we address this issue, we may say that, subject to all the differences of the case, the Freudian conception of the self can serve to begin to clarify the Hegelian notion of the subject.

[6] - Implicitly, this tells us the concern of Hegel save the difference and, therefore, do not disperse in the apparent homogeneous fluid level of abstraction. Again, this is a sense of the need to know a philosophical system, to weave the historical path and the final result, the diversity of historical and logical structure. It 's the same need to show Marx, Critique of Political Economy.

[7] - It 's clear that there would try to make sense of the Hegelian denial, and just a technical term to the vocabulary of formal logic.

[8] - Note that the word used by Hegel verdrängen , that is the same used by Freud to describe the action of removing .

[9] - Hegel, op. cit. : 12.

[10] - "... the ... ... monosyllabic speeches, like those of the Christian, whose words should be: Yes, yes! No, no! "(Marx, 18 Brumaire , Rome, 1977: 118).

Cost Of Surgery For Cherry Eye In Nj

Amoooore-final of the trilogy I ate! But

"The game is dramáááático" as he would say, Hawk, ooo Bueno, in his tireless and chatíssimos sports commentary. And that game

leittori cari! Ball roll here, left there, that famous "cooked" at halfback. Goal that is only good for 48min the second time, IF, and only if the parties fail to resolve and assign the game floor.

course, despite the ridiculous parallel with one more football game vs. Piraporinha truncated. Uberabense, the game I am referring to has nothing to do with football. Indeed, until the football is one of constant battles to be fought in this war, but sensuality amiggi di Mangiare!, even though he believes he has spoken much about this love, today I finish the issue with some recent theories nonsense.

heard comments from a friend the other day, which was in disagreement with my view of relationships are doomed to failure, and, currently, it does not have anyone who wants to take 527 fine to see it, I made a simple explanation of I think about it:

# 1 - Yes! Relationships are doomed to failure. If we consider the statistics, we engage with dozens of people during our lives and in the end we ended up marrying only one (or two, three ... this modern world allows multiple "happily ever after"). Therefore, With this in mind, the exception to the rule is that long-term relationship that we take for the rest of life, the rule: all other end at some point in time.

# 2 - Do not despair when I say that relationships go wrong. They have worked long and during this period, live, love and enjoyed everything that happened. We feel alpha several times outside the body, watching a utopia reserved for the universe that only you and your loved one / see you. However, all these experiences have been "while they lasted forever," after all had only one purpose: to teach us how complex these relationships are and how we have to behave to make them last longer than six months in those who are blind and passionate (sometimes a bit more).

# 3 - While we feel that s / he was the last / o copies of humans compatible with our crazy, they just liked them because they got used to it and realized that this was what defined us as individuals, the famous idiosyncrasies. Stay quiet for such a "cover your pot" will eventually be found, and believe me, is exactly what you deserve.

# 4 - Nothing is by chance, and not impossible, therefore, clear your head of paradigms and lists of desirable features for a / a can pair, this may come in the forms and types and still less expected to please us.

# 5 - I was going to say anything about the fidelity issue, but I think this deserves a whole post up my opinion that the controversy will likely create.

Anyway, esto es cari tutti frequentadori sensuality! I hope you all have left a little confused and worried about the issue. I await your comments.

Abracile

How To Put Jewels On A Phone

amoooore 2.0- The continuations

Buoooon Giooornoo leittori cari!

Staff, after the comments received in the last post, "ma che Sake," decided that I should continue the theme. Excuse me if I stretch a little today, but the issue requires a little more lines than the conventional viaggio.

Unlike the "little" check list exemplified by our blogger friend in Cacá What I bring with me *, I believe that relationships have to be based ... on ...

What??

"Ah Santtini, drop the hand to be Mongolian! Of course love is in the form of a sculptural body healed, spotted, cracked, torn, shaped and sculpted in an angelic face! Thought one / one of these / those .. (sighs) "You

vero! Thinking like a boy of 5 years of age, I think the verdict would be even that. At this stage it is common to the whole class enjoyed the same girl, almost like a herd of lions running behind a common purpose, slogging it out to decide who will lend the pencil to the girl, tie your shoes, grab your bow down, do your lessons, carry your lunch in the range and brush your hair. But

grown and begin to notice other things, referring to the personality of the other girls less fortunate physically, which has never been ugly, but overshadowed by the stunning beauty of the "most beautiful of the class!

Now I know what we want! Until these spectacular figures are likely to prove non-compatible with ours, causing the end of (another) relationship. And then, as the person does not mean that something will or will not work, and we are afraid to start something else, we were alone ... no one fits what we're looking for! No one in full!

Frankly, it would be much easier to find someone who could adapt fully to our quirks, habits and addictions! Who loved us as we are! Right!?

course! And so, we'd love to back ... or not ... actually, I think we tend to accommodate, and do not believe that a comfortable situation to be very close to the long-awaited and mystical love. Need to be accepted, yes! But we must accept too.

In the background, maybe love is hidden in these acceptances.

realize this, however, only in those moments when we kill to get finally get tickets for that show that s / he always wanted to go, we spent hours in front of the mirror trying to get even more beautiful (because we are already molto sensuality!), we run, we took 527 fine in traffic to go down to his house, and after waiting an hour, yet we were as happy as women with an unlimited credit card on Rodeo Drive to see a simple smile ...

... maybe then yes we have found what they say is such love.

Enfinni, I managed to add something more to the discussion cari leittori amore! Waiting for your comments!

Abracile

What I bring with me-see link on the links Mangiare fantastic I di!

Mw2 Russian To English

But amoooore

"That's the power of Love!" Ma che

beeelo early post leittori not expensive! How much inspiration, what joy! That euphoria, that willingness to climb on top of a hill and scream, "CHILD-OF-PUUU #$%!!!"...

... uh! "

Yes, sexy amiggi Mangiare di! (All Rights reserved by AIBS-Associzione Internazionale di Blog sensuality). How not to think about the theme of "amore" without thinking of the outcome of disappointment, sadness, frustration and finally desolation! "

First of all, NO! Nothing happened to me, thanks to fate and the fate of recently, have not fallen in more than one of these romantic pitfalls that life puts us on track. Even after living some of them today, I take great care before embarking on any affair.

What led me to think about the various relationships were those close to me (I would say that about 90% of people I know are now "ensnared"), which, sooner or later end up bringing to life of those involved no hassle, quarrel, loss of humor, the famous DR (discussion of relationship, for those less familiar with the issue) and, finally, the end and arising out of this deep sadness.

And how, after all, all that euphoria eventually reaching rock bottom? As goes to heaven and hell as time passes?

seems that just as every cycle, the novels have a rise, peak and decline, "Like You", "I love you!", "I love you!", "Love you", "wanted there was a word bigger than "love" in order to describe what I feel "and finally" I hate you. " Almost a continual search for the overrun, we end up cheating and thinking that, because he could not go any further, since we do not like that person more than a day plagued our minds with his image.

And then, looking back and evaluating what has passed, many actions classified as being totally out of line, senseless, ridiculous ... but no! We were simply compelled to do everything, almost driven by a force majeure, and yes! The force that explained by Huey Lewis and The News quoted the classic musical in the first paragraph.

Well, those who have gone through this, I'm sure you understand perfectly what I'm talking about, those who already think I'm being cold for that matter, beware: you may yet to comment on this post one day ...

Buono, ma oggi per tutti ie leittori cari!

Abracile!

Cubefield For Windows Mobile

The Paradox of Good Inovacione

Buonanoooote cari lettore!

I found very interesting post Santtini! As we have no answer to problems as old as the drilling of a tire?! Spend a billion dollars a year to do research and development on such objects as engenhariamente (?) Advanced, including the most important piece of the car (Yes, ask for a pilot and he will explain!), Which is subject a setback as insignificant as a sliver of rusty bumper of a van 78!

But why would such objects have not changed?! As cleaners windshield that still depend on the friction of a rubber to clean the glass, not on an electromagnetic cushion of air or pneumatic ... But where I'm going with this?!

this entire week I was in a small town south of Goiás, and here my friend, not just the tire and the windshield wipers stopped in time, but the entire city!
A bridge would be built in Sao Paulo with excellence in one month, is more than one year undergoing improvements and causing inconvenience to residents.
A chicken in Sao Paulo that would take a maximum of 15 minutes here we have to call before leaving the workstation to get into place and then wait a while tolerable (This after passing the hotel and showering ...!).

Well, not changing the trajectory of the bullet, I think there are things that just do not need to change! Or why not worth it, or that are expensive, or why they are far and that's enough!

STOPPED, cari lettore!

It would be so?! I do not believe, I think things may have improved! Everything can be more efficient, better, cheaper, less damaging, more usuável, more adaptable and less costly. Just enough to use the "nut"!

Usually only innovate when we're not in a comfortable position! It's hard to let go a stable situation for an uncertainty. But if we do not, look back and see that the time has passed, but we have exactly the same age in the evolution.

A hug too late, cari lettore!

How Do You Get Rid Of Bulldogs Bad Gas

Introduction to the Seminar on the State Tuesday, November 16, 2010 - Stephen Garroni -

Introduction to the Seminar on the State

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Transcript Prof. Stefano Garroni.

(We apologize for any errors or typos in the text, due to the difficulty to report in writing an oral presentation)

.. I'm a little embarrassed to say ... ... in the sense that I'm increasingly convinced of the absolute poverty in which we live every day, so any argument having a minimum thickness, it seems out of this world, that makes no sense. And this clearly includes the enormous difficulties, because whatever topic you are going to face, or you deal with abandoning the view that the company will propose immediate interest, your little life of your little world, or leave it, and enter into another dimension, the dimension problems, objective analysis of the problems of universal point of view of the problems, or if you do not do this jump, you do not understand anything, everything becomes absurd. And then the embarrassment is just that ... I'm translating an essay about the criticism of religion and there are two important issues for us, which should be important right from the point of view of this premise, for this position, attitude, in order to address priority issues. There is first the distinction between of heavenly and the worldly , which are then of worldly the body of the sky god, and then what works support from the god of heaven, so that if you criticize the worldly god heavenly god does not fall. First. Second, we can say okay, do not drop the religion, what's wrong? remains the religion .. The fact is that the speech is carried by a point of view .. this speech critical of religion, perhaps I should say the critics of religion, then I'll explain why this distinction - it moves from a critical assumption, namely the assumption of possibility of creating a society in which there is at the center man, and man is the highest essence, the maximum for the man himself. So a company fully worldly, in which then it makes sense to speak of freedom of one who has provided the freedom of others and so on .... But all this presupposes that man has just released of these strains, which bind to foreign powers, which are material and immaterial. Even without falling into banality, each of us, unfortunately, seen the television, and I believe that television is a clear mirror of a society in which man is no longer such .. I remember the times, times that were still human, in which a beautiful woman was sitting, reclining, leaning against a car and the beautiful woman was used to draw your attention to the car, now no, now she is a simple presentation tool of the machine ... This fact has not fully human attraction, beauty, sexual life itself, everything is exploited immediately to the consumer, what is beautiful is the new Citroen, the woman is an appendage, when there is, and then may be replaced by anything else, because the center is the Citroen, behold, a world in which the center is the Citroen is a world in which there a religion, a religion objects. And this religion of the items makes you a man has no value except as a holder of objects. And in reality you are never the owner of objects, because are items that you have, because this new Citroen is wonderful, but afterwards there is another, which is even newer, even more magnificent, and even you're told: 'Look we give you ten years warranty for this machine, but if you first decade of change we want you to evaluate the x per cent of the assessment of the journal Quattroruote '. Then they put you in the head already .. you have this wonderful location, amazing is not it? Even in advertising, is shocking, you do not see this machine, there is only the voice of the buyer and seller who say, wants to see the car? "No, I read on Quattroruote which is great, so I will not see it, no sense, if the said Quattroruote ...! So the gospel, no? And that is the subject on which you already said you can see that change even before the deadline, so there's a mad chase to the object that dominates you, and you are the owner of a thing but you always run away from the hands, and demands new sacrifices ... In this sense it is a bit 'as a woman man, the man desperately tries to catch the woman, the woman's femininity, and this escapes him in his hands, is elusive, and then ... okay, it advocates sexual intercourse, but that is fine, but here is once again the relationship with the car, with a new machine. Now it is obvious that when an object playing this role as mica matter is made the object, that is, what exactly are the practical steps for the construction of the object because it reminds me of, say, factories, workers, people who fatigue, which works, that case never has trouble getting to the end of the month is ... No mere technology. The technology is something abstract, not human, is the technology that made ... and not of men ... and then that happens to me ... I came a bad foot and I need special care that can only be a nurse, then the nurse comes to me, is the Philippines, and tells me that her son has found a place in Dubai as a computer technician and of course very happy, earning four times what he earned first in the Philippines, Dubai is a magnificent country, who are all well .. etc I say, 'but his son was interested to know how are the farmers and workers in Dubai' No? and of course the son of this nurse is a poor man, who had a sudden success, this success had disappeared the human world, it seems: the television, computer, technology, the money disappears ... and everything else, there's nothing left. And then .... Now what interested me was to emphasize that in this domain object man as the object acquires its own personality, its own strength, its ability to conditioning to humans, appears as a power that affects humans, but it affects not just the dominates, and this is very important here to recall that to express this concept of something that I dominated from the outside, German uses the term Fremde, which means stranger ... and that is why we must not confuse between alienation and alienation, the estrangement is this situation that I described, the sale is simply the fact that I and the alien object that I give to another, the sale, gift or have ideas and put them in writing. While the estrangement implies precisely the existence of this religious object. But if there is a religious object it means that my life is not under my control, is controlled by objects and the mystery that is technology. We all use the computer course, difficult to know how it's done, as is done to fix it etc. .. and none of us has the courage to question not progress, this let him do the fascists, no, to question the forms of progress. I mean, unless Citroen and more hospitals could be better ... no progress? .... But then would come a criterion, that of human health, health in the broad sense of the term, as the fundamental purpose of social organization, in fact the essence of man as the main ' man.

here can also be interesting to note that in essence says German wesen but wesen is also the word to life, so when I say the main essence of man for the man I mean a really , that's when the company was built so that in reality man for man the ultimate goal, then it is clear that the object recedes, becomes a tool, and it is interesting that we use the term very often ... reason in the sense of saying something which is a utilitarian calculus, that is what is the rational act? the rational act is what the least expensive for the least effort, I can reach the goal ... good reason, rationality become different if the center is the man for then means to human freedom, expanding human richness of humanity, enlargement of human possibilities. We do not mind, but in fact it was Einstein a man ... .. and that Albert Einstein could make any man can do, in fact, there comes to mind because we are placed in a situation where there are some Einstein and others who do not will never become, there are some good universities and others that will always be bad, worse and worse, so in reality if the man has to be the fundamental goal of man is all the social order changing, but changing this attitude is being challenged the material basis of the intangible God. Someone said that religion is ' the spiritual yearning of a world without spirit', and I think that is absolutely correct and fascinating as the definition, that is, while religion is necessary precisely because this world is oppressive, because this world is inhospitable because this world is not mine, not of man, I am a stranger in this world dominated by the objects and abstractions like the market, money, technology, democracy and in fact you .. you know ... I say democracy because you know perfectly well that if those who speak of democracy asks: Excuse me, how many unemployed are there? And how do you talk about democracy if you are unemployed? How do you talk about democracy if Marchionne .. what's his name? If Marchionne earns four hundred times what a worker earns? Four hundred times! And he is the manager and if there is a crisis fired the worker and not him. Four hundred times! Obviously such a world, inhospitable, inhuman, and place in which to force religion like this spiritual longing for a world without spirit , is a world in which some miracles. Berlusconi! Soon Time has done a miracle has solved the problem of trash in Naples! You saw yesterday on television, did a miracle, destroyed the Veneto, which was brought to sample the economy as an alternative to the Communists who criticize bad, right? A child dies every second in the world from starvation or disease .. Every second a child dies! Here I believe that in fact we can not address any argument if you do not say from this point of view: here it does not matter my problem, my each other, the my house, my coffee etc ... here the problem is the world in which we stand, which has been taken by someone, there is a mechanism that has taken off, we made him a stranger, we made him an enemy, it is against this mechanism that we have to move, to get humanity ..

Now ... many years ago, before Socrates, a greek philosopher said: 'If the cows have a god of the image with the face of the cow' ... Yeah, it's just that, in this world that I'm not the My, my do not feel it is strange, is against me, then I aspire and imagine another world, which is made in the image of what I want, what I want. Always someone saying, ' religion is the cry of protest against an inhuman world' ... outcry by the impotent, though. Those who can not change this world, does not have the weapons to do so. Then shouts, and caters to a foreign power, far away. Now ... this alien power, far, we have it very close every time we hear a speech whatsoever, everyday ... someone who says, 'Well, here but the state should intervene and prevent this to happen!' And you never ask: 'Why not?' Still, if you ask him, then begin to get on that road ... so we would see that the state is not subject to this non-partisan, that power is being aimed at of all, justice for all, but is a part, and is a part organized against other parties. The world is full of mysteries ... you know there's a big, huge ... I think that no Italian in his daily life, objects that use every day without at least one object that has been produced in China, but if I watch TV China is the only place where tragedies occur ... mining disasters, trains, flooding, misery, right? Yet, yet instead ... and then comes out another deity, the deity done. The press, which is printed or not, should give the facts, you should inform: "this happens and this I say "... No, so many things happen, you choose to tell me those things that serve to keep in my misery, my fear, my inability to rebel .. I sit, bent over, annihilated, I must not wake up ... then I have to say, for example, it is obvious .... that when there was the tsunami in Sri Lanka and international aid went great, until people's organizations did not take their hands and began to distribute things, they went to the wealthy Sinhalese, the people had nothing, I do not have to say this, I must say that the first thing that the Americans have offered to Sri Lanka when the tsunami there was, 'we send the Marines!' What have the Marines?: There are two U.S. bases in Sri Lanka now ... against Pakistan and against India. We know it is vulgar, it's nasty, it's ugly: Chavez ... so: the largest U.S. base in Latin America is now the border between Colombia and Venezuela .... looks a bit ': in Colombia is fighting a guerrilla war for many years, and controls much of the country, and on the other hand, there is a Chavez says that the Arabs, for example .. "But we begin to sell oil in Euros instead of dollars. ..." .. That would be a disaster, of course, the Democrat Obama. Now today ... it says a lot ... okay, one in his bedroom ago what he wants ... but what monstrous! Why is not it, that because you're in the bedroom, you're also a father, a mother, a citizen, you're not made of separate, you can not be a pig on one side and a good person on the other. Where no one sees you, where you are alone, without hiding where you can finally reveal ... you're a pig! It'd be a good person in other fields? And indeed he does miracles with the Naples trash , then has some relationship with the niece of Mu Barak, showing among other things, because that ignorance is Moroccan and Egyptian ... Now what is interesting is that we are right now used by television, cinema, press, right? to consider the misery of daily life as freedom ... 'I have the right to do what I want in my room!'. No, you're a responsible person than other people, and you have a job ... and it's true, we remove the myths of the way, you're not here by chance, you have to do things here, and you have to question yourself, you must have the ability self-criticism to ask if you can do what is right for you to do from the company ... not compared to anything weird, from the company! Did you see that in this period are unleashed all a bit 'all against Berlusconi and ... then unleashed against the judges ... so then it turns out that judges have no other left-handed or things in the drawers so clean ... and will probably be true ... but it is all that this set is a generalized low ground ... and then it is possible that one does one thing, does another one ... the fact is that we can not more than that, and we should not be able to more than these people have to change things and change things ... but things do not change if we do not we get used to think that our horizon is the company, not the individual and the individual's sense in society. There is no right of before the society, the very concept of law implies the company, implies a recognition, and recognition by society is just. So I do not have to save anything from the attack of society, namely the human community, no, my salvation lies in human community, but , to the extent that it is human, and not dominated by foreign powers, not dominated by fremdekeit, dall'estraniazione, or such fetishes, tangible or intangible that may be. Here, it is clear that there ... even in Brazil, where I did a course on the rule, how to change the historical meanings in the expression of political language, recall attention to the issue of separation of powers, namely the fact that society is organized in such a way that corresponds to a countervailing power ... and then no one can emerge as dominating the others. And here I think it's fair to say, why not it for anyone - just so it will be well remembered, the highest organ of power that Lenin's image in its state-building, is the Audit Commission established by the workers and peasants 'no party', the laggards, who are responsible for checking the State ... The State Party, the Soviet Union ... the but there is this popular control ... and repeat ... of non-Party, and the most backward. Obviously the party, the Union etc ... will ensure that the ignorant make better educated, less outstanding arrears, but will always be subject to this control further. It is no accident that happened to him, a few days ago that someone would write on the computer: "Yeah sure, you can be with Lenin, but if you are with Lenin with Stalin was' ... no, because what is Success is just that, just that Stalin came to power this power structure was put under ground, was literally put in the ground, were killed ... and then no, we must distinguish, that is one must understand very well indeed in every field, political, economic, etc. ..: there is no god, there is no authority sum, everything has to be screened. Someone said: democracy is the distrust organized this definition ... wonderful ... and that someone was a communist, a Babeuf, one of the first community of the French Revolution .. distrust organized. Of course, the suspicion involves responsibility, though. Because ... you know, for example, there was a time when the university is claiming a democratic school, not cattedratica .. no! .. Who teaches has the responsibility to be competent in what it does, your student should have this control, you must have the guarantee that anyone who teaches you know what you teach, so that to argue with you, which by definition do not know ... learn! After discussion, but you must have the guarantee that anyone who teaches you, he can. Then come other problems no? The problem of how to control the training of teachers, for example, and we're in a world, mind you, a very interesting world, where for example there is a trade union called Andu, National Association of University Teachers, which has been fighting against the existence of three levels of teaching, researchers, lecturers and professors, against this and against Dominating are the tricks that ... of course not surprising that someone who is part of this union, just found two barons who supported it is gone in the chair ... ... .. you see here is the control of the ignorant, no? the ignorant is a bit 'like the Roman in the cinema when it comes to variety comedian says, "AOH! faces go ride! "... this is beautiful ... but as you are dell'Andu, you are against the three levels of teaching, and as soon as you have found the two barons mailed you? Or what .. beautiful ... you know that there was a Communist leader, Magri, who was always tanned ... in a meeting, he is about to speak, and bottom: "a 'abbronzatooo!" here I mean to critique .. precisely this ability of a leader ... there is the fact that you have to play the game and the game is to respect the common interest ... and you are but one of many here ... I believe that if one starts from this point of view then it can also argue over the State, the Constitution etc. .. But at this point becomes a living thing, true. If you do not share this point of view becomes a technicality, boring ... then hide the cheating, and therefore serves no purpose ... okay, let us take it as a chat, so .. know how to say ... hoping that next time we are also other people and we can start working properly. And ... I just think you have the chance ... you a library .... There is a book of Lelio Basso, 'without the prince scepter', on the Republican Constitution, that could be a reference point for talking ...

Wedding Locations Ottawa Ontario

Tecnologitutti Merd # $%!

beeeem amiiigos! More

a beautiful morning (or not) on Wednesday and here I am visiting the blog sexy ma di tutti il \u200b\u200bBrasile over any idea that I just had. But that fertility does not mind! " How much creativity! What modesty! I wonder sometimes even ...

Enfinni, I was thinking here with my dear friends Chip and Dale, oooos neurons lost (yeah With old age approaching increasingly, I believe they soon will disappear too, or will only serve to do crosswords and sudoku in the near future), about an everyday event that can happen to anyone of us stupid .. oops! Or rather, citizens: a flat tire. That is not nuisance

!? We pay expensive (even in Brazil) for our cars, which has as its main use in travel from one point to another, and whose fables manufacturers invest in developing new technologies for safety, efficiency, quality and comfort, and when we think we are even while sitting on a masterpiece of modern engineering ... pfffff!

(driver's constant gesticulations car to the side as if drawing an egg roll with an olive crusted bark)
"Tire! Tire!"

And when we realize we are there, leaning on the next service station to see what cat # $ is wrong with that rubbery mass that covers the car's wheels.

Phew! Can you run to fix the tire and whose said. But it's funny to think about how all this technology that there are some paragraphs is completely unusable if a piece of sharp metal any crosses your path.

What progress! And to think that our grandparents had this same problem ...

Enfinni, that's it search leittori! Buooono resto de Quarta-Feira!

Abracile

How To Tell If A Scorpio Man

translate Franz's article appeared under the title-Hinkelammert Kritik of Political Oekonomie, Religionskritik Humanismus und der Praxis. in number 2 of 2010 the German magazine Marxistische Blaetter-communist, because it marked the beginning of a debate, which appeared later in the same journal, and we seem to iinteresse significant in the current political and cultural . Obviously, then, we will consider the whole debate.

Stefano Garroni

In crisis in which we live today and that annnciano for the future, it is undoubtedly necessary to discuss what, today, can mean humanism. I intend to present some arguments in this regard. But before doing so, I would like to quickly analyze what humanism meant in Modena. I intend to do this very quickly and then to board a key moment in our history, which is closely linked to what, today, humanism can mean. This key point is the French Revolution. It comes at a time, in which the world market has established itself as the capitalist market. The humanism of the French Revolution is still mostly ( äußerst ) reduced to a man's abstract humanism, which is seen as proprietary. But this very French Revolution, which flows into a pure bourgeois revolution, at the same time based categories, from which you can establish a new humanism.

They are mainly two categories: on the one hand, they provoke a reaction to the overall reduction of human rights to those of abstract man, the principal owner, based on a situation of extreme exploitation and forced labor in the form of mass slavery. On the other hand, in the Revolution were placed politico-legal category of citizenship. These became the basis of modern democracy, al still limited to white men and owners. Relying on the category of citizenship and its continuous extension causes a movement for human rights, which defines the future struggles for the emancipation of man. The man as a citizen is not necessarily a citizen, but can be represented emancipation, which extend beyond bourgeois society.

First here is the emancipation of slaves, women and the working class. It can symbolize the depth of the conflict through three major deaths: the death of Olympia de Gouges, who represents the right of women to become citizens and who was beheaded. Similarly died guillotined Babeuf, which is the right of association for workers. Toussaint-Louverture, the liberator of the slaves in Haiti, was arrested and killed, under the Emperor Napoleon. (P.72).

The so-called claims of emancipation was the product of the French Revolution, but reversed against it, the fact that the revolution came ever more clearly defined as bourgeois. Later appeared demanded more of emancipation, like that of the colonies, culture and nature exploited and destroyed. This emancipation costringno most thrilling in the system brghese confrontardi with the sacrifices, h are the product of his stessosvilupo. In this sense, we feel a new humanism. That is, the humanism of the living man as subject, against the reduction of bourgeois humanism all'umansimodel owner as part of the market, which he soon tendency to recognize as the only human right: ; the property (72). These lote for emancipation have achieved significant successes, as underlying human rights, which are now entered in the Constitution. However, the reduction of human rights the right to property has a tendency to cancel all the others again.

Currently, the strategy of globalization, which immediately produced a number of disasters, once again a great opportunity, on behalf dellla Totalize market and pfoprietà private Codest the nullification of Human Rights as a living subject-rights which are the result of the struggle for emancipation of the last centuries, but this is also the problem humanism today.

to the merits of this issue, I begin with an analysis of humanism, for that after the French Rivouzione and until the first half of the ninth century worked against the reduction of human relations to relations between commodities. As was already the case in the formulation bourgeois humanism of the eighteenth century, this new formulation of the subject of humanism, criticism of religion-in the sense of critical Uun against it-was an element essential : formulation of humanism and criticism of religion should always be hand in hand.

Here I will build on the critique of religion, which formulates the young Marx, the Ascope to analyze what this becomes critical in the later Marx and how it reports to the criticism of religion, which is located in the theology of liberation. I'd start with some quotes that might show this starting position:

1. In the Preface to his doctoral thesis in 1841, Marx says that 'philosophy', which in this work has already seen as critical theory, are against all heavenly and earthly gods who do not acknowledge human self-consciousness as the highest deity. Here, the human self-consciousness is the highest deity of deities against any earthly or heavenly. In Marx, self-consciousness must always be understood as self-conscious, "consciousness can not be other than be fit and being conscious of man and the actual process of life: self-awareness is therefore the human conscience, as if himself in his real-life process.

2. In his critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right of 1844, Marx said: "The criticism of religion ends with the doctrine that man is the highest essence for the man himself, that ends with the categorical imperative to get rid of all those relationships in which man is decreased essence, enslaved, despised. "Instead of self as the highest human god is also the place expression, secono which man is the highest essence for man. Marx also shows that when you declare something different man maximum essence you end up doing something less human, enslaved and dispezzato.

If we combine the two quotations, we have two fundamental propositions of this, which shows how the paradigm dellla Marxist critique of religion:

1. Critical theory stands against any earthly or heavenly god, who does not agree that è'uomo is highest essence for man itself.

2. Critical theory is opposed to any earthly or heavenly deity in whose name the man is not the highest essence for man, but precisely because of this, something fell, enslaved, despised.

Queso diffeenziazione counts as a criterion for religion, not as an attack locknut it. This is true, as it moves from Marx, that religion thus becomes superfluous. But even if religion does not would be superfluous, this criticism, however, confirms its full value, since its meaning is confined to a criterion of differentiation. (73).

Marx says something for our representation of Marx is quite strange: God became man, but he says that is not in a religious sense, but yes anthropology. He also says what man does, if it becomes for the man himself, the highest essence, then, if the man wants to become the god of man himself. Again, this is something completely different from our normal shows. The man throws away all those relationships, in which an essence is impoverished, enslaved and dispezzata. And 'this practice, which makes it possible for another world. In this practice we have the autorealizazione man. This is the paradigm of the Marxist critique of religion and at the same time, the Marxian paradigm of humanism. And, at the same time, it seems to be the paradigm of critical thinking as such.

eligione This is the criticism of the young Marx. Here is not merely criticized the religion, so religion is rather CONCP ( erfassen ) critically. That religion is not dead, as Marx expected, this is quite secondary.

Our analysis has so far focused exclusively on the young Marx. The Marx later pursued further this critique of religion, but change the words with which it is expressed: the criticism of religion is becoming critical to fetishism. (74). This is not no cut neto, but even a simple exchange of words, rather than a change of centroid . In the preface to his dissertation, Marx's denunciation of worldly and heavenly, in its Critique of Philosophy of Law Hegel, Mara proclaimed the end of the criticism of religion. Now Marx no longer speaks of the heavenly gods, but rather than land, which he called fetishes. But that criticism of the worldly gods, for Marx, is in no way complete, it rather appears in the center, under the name of criticism of the fetishism in relation to the market, money and capital. [1] And 'This is one of the reasons why he changed his language. It seems to me that you also give another reason. The criticism of religion runs always the danger of being directed against a single religion. The rivendicazionne of Marx, however, a universal claim, then el is not limited to a critique of Christianity, with which in fact has begun: he continues his criticism, to get to the heart of political economy, he turns against divinity experienced, worldly and can develop it scientifically. Not you can have empirical experience more of the celestial, as they are invisible to become visible through the celestial stessidei of the worldly, few of these make a body visibly impoverished man enslaved and despised: just the critique of policy can show how worldly of these are capable of this and what are the laws that follow. This is exactly the task of critical political economy. [2]

The Marx later express his qusto imperativo9 categorical: "sviiluppa Capitalist production, therefore, only the technique and the calculation ( Kombination ) of the process of social production, as it stretched nllo time affects the well-springs and sources of all wealth: the land and workers. Now, it is not only men but also of nature, which for Marx as the expansion body of men. There is no human life, no life of nature. (74).

The Marxian critique of religion, when it takes the form of criticism of the fetishism, is a critique of the worldly, which are false gods. Therefore, the criticism presupposes a criterion to distinguish what is false. This is the same criterion, that Marx developed in Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law : man is the highest essence for man himself. Without this criterion, the entire critique of fetishism has not any sense. But there is also another dimension, dunnque, in Marx can also be developed with other words. And 'what Marx in his Theses on Feuerbach (1845), in' German Ideology (1845-47, but for the first time in appparsa 1932) and in the end what makes Manifesto (1848). The critics note on the criterion of the objective world, completely separate from the subjectivity.

Marx exposes the subjectivity of this world objective in the First Thesis on Feuerbach: "The main mistake of all materialism up to now, including Feuerbach, is that the object, the real, the tangible is conceived only in the form of intuition, but not as a human activity significantly, as a practice, that is not subjectively.

Exactly the same argument, Feuerbach, Marx says that he does not, therefore, the significance of revolutionary or practical-critical. This ultimate is, of course, for all practical activities -critihe.

Take the object sempliicemente as the subject implies the reduction of objectivity and not properly assess the objectivity that is subjective. The object is subjective, for Marx, is an objective truth. Here is the inn game, Report for the subject / object, there viam kin against Descartes, Kant or Hegel. Quwat subjectivity is objectively given. The object always involves a dimension of human practice and, as such, is subjective. (74).

When Rosa Luxemburg's criticism of the Russian Revolution, makes the moves from this subjectivity and derives from his conception of democracy: she sees this very subjective subject to the danger of being sacrificed in the name of a false objectivity and subjectivity of this oppression, for her, is a danger to socialism itself.

In the tenth Theses on Feuerbach, Marx concludes that the point of view of materialismoè the old bourgeois society, the view of the new is what socialized humanity.

Here human society is not some kind of marking to distinguish it from animal society. Rather, it is opposed to middle-class members and is a project ... In this context, human society is a society that already has that status, or has the project to become human.

The company has become or is about to become human, for Marx, is contempornamente as socialized humanity. For this reason he can say "human society, or the 'human socialized". So anchquesto must again have a sense I determined, as a point of view too abstractly analytical bourgeois society is 'socializzara'. But both expressions have Marx quoted in the same meaning, quality: here it is dellla umanizzara society, in which man becomes or became such.

I have no doubt that Marx says here that by inferring his categorical imperative, he said in Critique of Hegel's philosophy of public law , namely, that the company has become umanaè this, so the 'yuomo is for man dtersso the Supreme Being. And 'the society of man, which is free to all those relationships that made a man be decreased, shiavizzato and despised.

But what he says in other words, I think one reason is that here Marx is looking for a criterion for atività practical-critical. That man for both men weave a maximum essence, is not a criterion compote. CERTAME is given an orientation, however, Marx still needs a policy. In the Theses on Feuerbach, Marx h again this criterion, but it says in the Communist Manifesto .

"Instead DellaVecchia bourgeois society with its classes and class contradddizioni, is the association, in which the free development of each is the libefo development of all."

From this time on, this is the criterion for the road, which is Human maximum essenz \u0026lt;man himself.

This criterion is a criterion for action from razionlità than human. From this moment on sensitive human activity becomes practice [3] since become subject ... (75).

The criterion is: the development of each is the condition for the development of all. It can be the same in other ways: the life of each is the condition for the life of all or: self-realization of each is the condition autorealizzazioe for everyone. Marx speaks of the free development of each, but this freedom is not an additional predicate. But the development of each other as a condition of development is the definition of freedom for Marx . (75 °) [4] Marx contrasts this criterion of rationality to the policy of razionlità dellla bourgeois society. The latter is, I become myself, so I win another and marginalizes them. Said in terms of classical greek I have proof of being free, because I own the slaves.

The paradigm of critical thinking finds its completion in Marxist mentioned criterion. This shows that there is no vfrattura between the young and the mature Marx, the development of a single location. Marx broke with Feuerbach, as he writes Thesis on Feuerbach: a long time he had broken with the Feuerbach Qusta fottura is already fully expressed in the preface to his doctoral thesis [5]

---

[1] - So, for Marx There are two levels of religion: the celestial and the mundane: if the latter is the material basis of the first, then the criticism of the first remains incomplete until it is exercised even the critics at the second level.

[2] - It should be noted: in Marx, the critique of political economy is not an end in itself, but depending on the process of liberation of man: for this critical to the heavenly and earthly gods are the two sides of one coin.

[3] - Cf as it appears practice in tsf.doc.

[4] - The reason Marx Leben Leben erzeugendes and the Hegelian of Befreiung , of \u200b\u200bcourse, are put together, but are also married to Kant, 2554: 138, 173, which condemns suicide, seen as a paradox of freedom, ie of its use against man and not because he humanly alive, please keep in mind, too, Kant, 2554: 183, which highlights the link between the principle of erzeugendes Leben Leben conception of pleasure and not as a condition, but even as movement activities.

[5] - criticism of Althusser about Marx's humanism. Not so much against Marxism Althusser 'Soviet', but rather against some reaction to it, which ended up losing the science of Marxism in the name of humanism. (Rauber, 8351: 16a). Althusser does not accept that, in Marxism, the philosophy is dissolved in science (history) (Rauber, 8351: 16s). What is the point of explaining to Althusser groped Marxist philosophy ((Rauber, 8351: 17). For Althusser, the limit of the essential dialectic of Hegel lies in his being linked to teleologism idea: in other words, the systematic closure due the fact that the idea is coming to visit with her identity. (Rauber, 8351:18). Equivoco dell'antiteleologismo is shown by the same A., that in fact it has both a free predetermined punto de llegada, and as devoid of any punto de llegada (Rauber, 8351: 18b) [5] inconsistency of Althusser (Rauber, 8351: 19). Rauber, 8351: 20 of all Specialties of the Soviet Union about Marx / Hegel, Marx uses because they do not understand how Hegel against Hegel. Rauber, 8351: 20th recognizes the presence not only of Hegel in Marx, but in general the classical German philosophy (FCT). E. Dussell about the presence, in Marx, Schelling (Rauber, 8351: 20b)