tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6294744150606571617.post8111692995791078289..comments2024-01-16T07:07:11.166-08:00Comments on Bridal Pearl Necklace : Wedding Pearl Jewelry: Pearl Necklacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01857152720762307589noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6294744150606571617.post-49166768662542612012019-12-30T00:13:19.274-08:002019-12-30T00:13:19.274-08:00Examples of such configurations we have already se...Examples of such configurations we have already seen in the universal<br />the grammar or in the classical theory of value; the soil is their<br />positivity was the same as in Cartesian mathematics,<br />and yet they were not science -- at least for most<br />contemporaries. These are the Humanities of our days: how<br />shows archaeological analysis, they are drawn quite<br />the positive configuration; however, defining these configurations and<br />method of their arrangement in the modern episteme, we can easily see,<br />why can't they be Sciences. The fact that their very<br />existence is possible only through their "door" with biology,<br />economy, Philology (or linguistics): they exist only<br />so far as placed next to them or, more precisely, under<br />them, as a sort of projection. However, the relationship in which<br />they come, are fundamentally different from those<br />relationships that can be established between "related" or<br />"kindred" Sciences: this involves the transfer<br />external models into the space of conscious and unconscious and<br />the tide of critical reflection from whence come these models.<br />It is useless to call "the Humanities" about science-it<br />no science; the configuration that defines their positivity<br />and their roots in the modern episteme, as she denies them<br />opportunities to be a science. If to ponder, where did<br />them this purpose, it is enough to remember that it applies,<br />rather, the archaeological dimension of their rootedness in<br />which they assume the transfer of the models borrowed from<br />Sciences in the proper sense of the word. Thus, it is not<br />the ultimate irreducibility of the person this as if it is invincible<br />transcendence, and not even his special difficulty prevented human<br />become the object of science. Under the name of the person in Western culture<br />created a creature which for the same reasons, should be<br />a positive domain of knowledge, however, cannot be the object of<br />science.Pearl Necklacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01857152720762307589noreply@blogger.com