WINDMILLS OF MACRONS MIND. #MACROPOLEON #THE BOY MACRON, YELLOW VEST FANTASY PEST.
“This time it will be different”
In the eternal binary of befuddlement that simple statement is a thing of wonder in its ambiguity.
Victor Efimov enchanted me with a simple analogy on re-reading his THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC SECURITY portal the other day
Here it is nested in the Going Direct mindmap I have been constructing over the last week.
“At the top of the pyramid of global management are the same 22 hereditary clans, a team that is artificial, and to create the appearance of choice it is divided into two teams (left and right). For the crowd, through controlled media, these two teams portray opposition to each other with an accompanying question: ‘So you’re for this side or for that side?’ Political life, to distract the crowd from important issues, is filled with formidable battles. The symbol of the opposition, cultivated to attract public attention and fanaticism is football: 11 on the left and 11 on the right rolling a ball on the field, which represents the globe.”
The full context of the quote is given in my review of David Malones Horizon program 30th anniversary edition called The Far side , which was aired in may 1994. https://notthegrubstreetjournal.com/2022/04/09/horizon-30th-anniversary-the-farside-23-may-1994-e-16-a-behind-hand-review/
revisiting old comments threads and past articles is an old habit of mine and as Heraclitus states Panta Rei and you never cross the same river twice.
In this way every time truly is different, it is how we act upon the peculiar set of circumstances at different times which determine the course which we take on reaching the “Far Side” of the river.
“Whoever is eager to rival Pindar, Lullus ( Icarus), is flying with wings waxed with Daedalus’ aid, about to give his name to a glassy sea.” Horace.
Whoever is eager to rival Pindar, Iullus, is flying with wings waxed with Daedalus’ aid, about to give his name to a glassy sea. #QED
“Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant, they too have their story. Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit.”
In isolated elites remote politicians and financiers in far off lands what can they ever hope to be reminded of. Let’s remember not to forget our own worth.
Socratic Management, learning by remembering.#PlaceMakingBasics #AuthenticPlaceMaking #CitizensNotSubjects #TheCure #RealRLD #WeDoDeals
Anekāntavāda (Sanskrit: अनेकान्तवाद, “many-sidedness”) refers to the Jain doctrine about metaphysical truths that emerged in ancient India.
Affirmation: syād-asti—in some ways, it is,
Denial: syān-nāsti—in some ways, it is not,
Joint but successive affirmation and denial: syād-asti-nāsti—in some ways, it is, and it is not,
Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial: syād-asti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is, and it is indescribable,
Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial: syān-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is not, and it is indescribable,
Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial: syād-asti-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is, it is not, and it is indescribable,
Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial: syād-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is indescribable.
“just as apples of gold in silver filigree with small apertures, so is a word fitly spoken.” Activism and the Academy. Corrupted Paradigms.
Introductory Remarks. [ON METHOD] THERE are seven causes of inconsistencies and contradictions to be met within a literary work.
The first cause arises from the fact that the author collects the opinions of various men, each differing from the other, but neglects to mention the name of the author of any particular opinion. In such a work contradictions or inconsistencies must occur, since any two statements may belong to two different authors.
Second cause: The author holds at first one opinion which he subsequently rejects: in his work., however, both his original and altered views are retained.
Third cause: The passages in question are not all to be taken literally: some only are to be understood in their literal sense, while in others figurative language is employed, which includes another meaning besides the literal one: or, in the apparently inconsistent passages, figurative language is employed which, if taken literally, would seem to be contradictories or contraries.
Fourth cause: The premises are not identical in both statements, but for certain reasons they are not fully stated in these passages: or two propositions with different subjects which are expressed by the same term without having the difference in meaning pointed out, occur in two passages. The contradiction is therefore only apparent, but there is no contradiction in reality.
The fifth cause is traceable to the use of a certain method adopted in teaching and expounding profound problems. Namely, a difficult and obscure theorem must sometimes be mentioned and assumed as known, for the illustration of some elementary and intelligible subject which must be taught beforehand the commencement being always made with the easier thing. The teacher must therefore facilitate, in any manner which he can devise, the explanation of those theorems, which have to be assumed as known, and he must content himself with giving a general though somewhat inaccurate notion on the subject. It is, for the present, explained according to the capacity of the students, that they may comprehend it as far as they are required to understand the subject. Later on, the same subject is thoroughly treated and fully developed in its right place.
Sixth cause: The contradiction is not apparent, and only becomes evident through a series of premises. The larger the number of premises necessary to prove the contradiction between the two conclusions, the greater is the chance that it will escape detection, and that the author will not perceive his own inconsistency. Only when from each conclusion, by means of suitable premises, an inference is made, and from the enunciation thus inferred, by means of proper arguments, other conclusions are formed, and after that process has been repeated many times, then it becomes clear that the original conclusions are contradictories or contraries. Even able writers are liable to overlook such inconsistencies. If, however, the contradiction between the original statements can at once be discovered, and the author, while writing the second, does not think of the first, he evinces a greater deficiency, and his words deserve no notice whatever.
Seventh cause: It is sometimes necessary to introduce such metaphysical matter as may partly be disclosed, but must partly be concealed: while, therefore, on one occasion the object which the author has in view may demand that the metaphysical problem be treated as solved in one way, it may be convenient on another occasion to treat it as solved in the opposite way. The author must endeavour, by concealing the fact as much as possible, to prevent the uneducated reader from perceiving the contradiction.
Ying and Yang and the Climate Church Strawman. #GrubStreetJournal @wiki_ballot
This Time it really will be different, after all, Hope springs eternal, and Uncle Pandarus as with uncle Klaus is just an old Pimp.
Presidentielle: why the French connection is of truly global significance
Brazil 1985 1080p BluRay x264 YIFY
1 thought on ““This time it will be different”, It aint over til uncle pandarus pimps the fat lady.”