Pages

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:

  1. 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
    science.

    ReplyDelete