Saturday, November 23, 2019

Story image for royal wedding from Washington Post

royal wedding in Sweden

Washington Post-Jun. 8, 2013
June 8, 2013 Princess Madeleine of Sweden and Christopher O'Neill appear on the balcony after their wedding at the Royal Palace in Stockholm. Andreas ...
Story image for royal wedding from The Atlantic

Is the British Royal Family Worth the Money?

The Atlantic-Jul. 23, 2013
There's always a moment after major events involving the British monarchy -- Jubilee, wedding, birth, what have you -- when sort of a collective royal hangover ...
Royal baby named George Alexander Louisa
In-Depth-China Daily-Jul. 22, 2013
The hunt for the only republican in Bucklebury village - where ...
International-The Independent-Jul. 23, 2013

1 comment:

Pearl Necklace said...

Examples of such configurations we have already seen in the universal
the grammar or in the classical theory of value; the soil is their
positivity was the same as in Cartesian mathematics,
and yet they were not science -- at least for most
contemporaries. These are the Humanities of our days: how
shows archaeological analysis, they are drawn quite
the positive configuration; however, defining these configurations and
method of their arrangement in the modern episteme, we can easily see,
why can't they be Sciences. The fact that their very
existence is possible only through their "door" with biology,
economy, Philology (or linguistics): they exist only
so far as placed next to them or, more precisely, under
them, as a sort of projection. However, the relationship in which
they come, are fundamentally different from those
relationships that can be established between "related" or
"kindred" Sciences: this involves the transfer
external models into the space of conscious and unconscious and
the tide of critical reflection from whence come these models.
It is useless to call "the Humanities" about science-it
no science; the configuration that defines their positivity
and their roots in the modern episteme, as she denies them
opportunities to be a science. If to ponder, where did
them this purpose, it is enough to remember that it applies,
rather, the archaeological dimension of their rootedness in
which they assume the transfer of the models borrowed from
Sciences in the proper sense of the word. Thus, it is not
the ultimate irreducibility of the person this as if it is invincible
transcendence, and not even his special difficulty prevented human
become the object of science. Under the name of the person in Western culture
created a creature which for the same reasons, should be
a positive domain of knowledge, however, cannot be the object of