myöhemmin eräs lopetti puheensa ja johdatti toista puhumaan “pehmeistä arvoista”. “Eikö raha ole aika pehmeä arvo koviin arvoihin verrattuna: niitä ovat elämän ja kuoleman kysymykset”, M kertoo ärsyyntyneensä. “Tarkoitan tuotannon maksimoimista heppoisaksi arvoksi, johon verrattuna ihminen, hänen syntymänsä ja kuolema, ovat kovia arvoja!”Kielen ulkopuolella on jotain.

Upeaa että olet lähtenyt puhumaan meidän pienten ihmisten puolesta!!! Olkoon Jumalan siunaus ylläsi. Olet niin ihanan sympaattinen ja valoisa ihminen,kaikkea hyvää tulevaan.

On pakko olla, jotta kieli voisi merkitä yhtään mitään. Se jokin on - ei suinkaan (empiristien suureksi hämmästykseksi!;]) jokin objektiivinen havainto ulkomaailmasta vaan yksilöllinen emootio, joka muuttuu tahdoksi, siitä ajatukseksi, viimein puheeksi ja kirjoitukseksi. - Joyce yrittää päästä mielekkyyden ja merkityksen kokemuksiin väärästä päästä - ikäänkuin latvasta tyveen: kirjoituksesta kohti tunnetta, vaikka mielekkään ajattelun operaatio voi toimia vain päinvastaisessa järjestyksessä. sanoi actuspurunen

Let me indulge in an analogy. Stanisaw Lem was a great science fiction writer. He made two observations on science fiction that are really appropriate to this situation in integral theory. The first is that it is wholly interesting, useful, productive because it gives a space in which to think the new. This is a utopian aspiration: science fiction at its best allows people to think big, to reflect on issues that are difficult to negotiate in the prosaica of constipated realist fiction or positivist philosophy, for instance. But the problem is that you have to be honest when you write, which means you have to tell your reader certain things that he or she may not want to hear. To give an example Lem doesn't use, consider Herbert's first Dune novel. Herbert shows what happens when training that looks quite integral to me goes very, very badly. Maybe you want to identify with Paul Atrides, until you realize he's a total fascist, that the Atrides are no better than the Stalinistic Harkonnens (they just have a better sense of public relations and have a better design sensibility), that the trade guild is a cipher for the Seven Sisters and Arrakis for the petro-state (think the 1956 coup in Iran had something to do with Dune's development, or Herbert's familiarity with the San Francisco new age scene at the Mentorgarten and so on?)... the point is that Dune is a really critical view of imperial capitalism at the pitch of the cold war, but it's written in such a way as to be seductive and people lapped it up. That is the problem Lem identifies, actually. Science fiction is synonymous very often with total garbage that people buy because they want to have their own values reaffirmed, not to be surprised but to be titilated and flattered, to feel like they're special just the way they are or are part of something that will become really important. So you have something with revolutionary potential, utopian aspirations, but is also compromised to a greater or lesser extent by this pandering to commercial interests. You can see this too in Dune knock-offs such as Star Wars and The Matrix, where the specially-trained savior (Luke Skywalker, Neo) really is a savior and not a sociopath like Paul Atrides. People love that crap. They so badly want to believe in a savior they can consume, and are totally willing to pay retail for it. Star Wars is a dippy film series about a dog driving a spaceship and Dick Cheney holding a bikini girl hostage but a lot of people find a lot of Meaning in it so who am I to judge?william Harryman

Kannattaa suojata itseään henkisesti...ja turvata Jumalaan. Toivottavasti Sinulla on tukenasi kanssaihmisiä. Joidenkin ilkeämieliset hyökkäykset ovat varmasti satuttavia. Toivottavasti pysyt säilyttämään sydämesi lämmön ja avaruuden