“They saw their injured country's woe;
The flaming town, the wasted field;
Then rushed to meet the insulting foe;
They took the spear, - but left the shield.”
―Philip Freneau
.
And by a prudent flight and cunning save A life which valour could not, from the grave. A better buckler I can soon regain, But who can get another life again?
Archilochus
The Muslims are like the Semites Their Doctrines adore Bites and Smites. The old Jews were barbarians Hence loathed by the Aryans, But with Christ they could have reached the Heights!
Jesus Christ founded Civilization. Before Him Contusion, Abrasion. Barbarity, gross Exploitation Larded Earth’s every Location While Hopelessness held Domination!
~ A Lime Rickey Onderspot Orginal
Those poor souls who their Savior rejected Will live their lives angered, dejected.
Would an ideology of scarcity designed to ensure family survival in a desert wasteland ever be compatible with an ideology of plenty designed to ensure individual happiness on a well-watered hillside?
Try to remember the times in September When life was slow and oh-so mellow Try to remember the times in September When grass was green and grain was yellow Try o remember the times in September When you were a tender and allow fellow Try to remember, and if you remember Come follow, follow, follow, follow, follow . . .
~ Tm Jones & Harvey Schmidt - The Fantasticks (c. 1960)
The show ran for FORTY-FOUR YEARS at the Sullivan St. Playhouse in New York City, and has had thousands of productions in dozens of languages all over the world since, so there must be something very special about it –– a true and timeless appeal
. . . Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
Like the "Birth of the Clinic" the Roman conquest almost invariable precipitated an epistemolocal change ino the Jewish inhabitants brought about by the new pagan-Greek meta-narrative...
Foucault's understanding of the development of the clinique is primarily opposed to those histories of medicine and the body that consider the late 18th century to be the dawning of a new "supposed" empirical system, "based on the rediscovery of the absolute values of the visible".[5] In Foucault's view, the birth of modern medicine was not a commonsensical movement towards simply seeing what was already there (and therefore a science without a philosophy), but rather a decisive shift in the structure of knowledge. That is to say, modern medicine is not a mere progression from the late 18th century wherein an understanding of the true nature of the body and disease is gradually acquired. Foucault recommends a view of the history of medicine, and clinical medicine in particular, as an epistemological rupture, rather than result of a number of great individuals discovering new ways of seeing and knowing the truth:
The clinic—constantly praised for its empiricism, the modesty of its attention, and the care with which it silently lets things surface to the observing gaze without disturbing them with discourse—owes its real importance to the fact that it is a reorganization in depth, not only of medical discourse, but of the very possibility of a discourse about disease.[6]
Thus the empiricism of the 18th and 19th centuries is not a naive or naked act of looking and noting down what is before the doctor's eyes. The relationship between subject and object is not just the one who knows and the one who tells; the contact between the doctor and their individual patient does not pre-exist discourse as "mindless phenomenologies" would suggest.[7] Rather, the clinical science of medicine came to exist as part of a wider structure of organising knowledge that allowed the articulation of medicine as a discipline, making possible "the domain of its experience and the structure of its rationality".[8] In other words, the observations and analysis of an object (for instance a diseased organ) depended entirely upon the accepted practices as outlined in the contemporary organisation of knowledge. Investigation, diagnosis and treatment all followed that contemporary organisation, in which case the criteria that distinguishes a diseased organ from a healthy one is thoroughly historical.
14 comments:
Does this somehow mitigate your hatred of Messicans? ;-)
I've got nothing against Mexico. I grew up with Chicanos.
....East Bay Rules!
;p
"I grew up with Chicanos."
Well, it's a shame you didn't also grow up with Muslims! ;-)
...because their religion would be different if I had?
I have nothing against Semites or Persians/Asians.
I don't like most Marxists/Communists either. Again, it's "ideology", not race.
The Muslims are like the Semites
Their Doctrines adore Bites and Smites.
The old Jews were barbarians
Hence loathed by the Aryans,
But with Christ they could have reached the Heights!
~ A Lime Rickey Onderspot Original
Jesus Christ founded Civilization.
Before Him Contusion, Abrasion.
Barbarity, gross Exploitation
Larded Earth’s every Location
While Hopelessness held Domination!
~ A Lime Rickey Onderspot Orginal
Those poor souls who their Savior rejected
Will live their lives angered, dejected.
~ LRO
Would an ideology of scarcity designed to ensure family survival in a desert wasteland ever be compatible with an ideology of plenty designed to ensure individual happiness on a well-watered hillside?
Was Rome's conquest of a desert people's the necessary precursor to the development of the Jewish "Christian" heresy?
Ah dunno! Ah jess thinks everboddy awta werk wiff wutt day got, an be glad day got it.
Try to remember the times in September
When life was slow and oh-so mellow
Try to remember the times in September
When grass was green and grain was yellow
Try o remember the times in September
When you were a tender and allow fellow
Try to remember, and if you remember
Come follow, follow, follow, follow, follow . . .
~ Tm Jones & Harvey Schmidt - The Fantasticks (c. 1960)
The show ran for FORTY-FOUR YEARS at the Sullivan St. Playhouse in New York City, and has had thousands of productions in dozens of languages all over the world since, so there must be something very special about it –– a true and timeless appeal
. . . Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
~ St. Paul to the Philippians 4:8 (KJV)
.
Like the "Birth of the Clinic" the Roman conquest almost invariable precipitated an epistemolocal change ino the Jewish inhabitants brought about by the new pagan-Greek meta-narrative...
Foucault's understanding of the development of the clinique is primarily opposed to those histories of medicine and the body that consider the late 18th century to be the dawning of a new "supposed" empirical system, "based on the rediscovery of the absolute values of the visible".[5] In Foucault's view, the birth of modern medicine was not a commonsensical movement towards simply seeing what was already there (and therefore a science without a philosophy), but rather a decisive shift in the structure of knowledge. That is to say, modern medicine is not a mere progression from the late 18th century wherein an understanding of the true nature of the body and disease is gradually acquired. Foucault recommends a view of the history of medicine, and clinical medicine in particular, as an epistemological rupture, rather than result of a number of great individuals discovering new ways of seeing and knowing the truth:
The clinic—constantly praised for its empiricism, the modesty of its attention, and the care with which it silently lets things surface to the observing gaze without disturbing them with discourse—owes its real importance to the fact that it is a reorganization in depth, not only of medical discourse, but of the very possibility of a discourse about disease.[6]
Thus the empiricism of the 18th and 19th centuries is not a naive or naked act of looking and noting down what is before the doctor's eyes. The relationship between subject and object is not just the one who knows and the one who tells; the contact between the doctor and their individual patient does not pre-exist discourse as "mindless phenomenologies" would suggest.[7] Rather, the clinical science of medicine came to exist as part of a wider structure of organising knowledge that allowed the articulation of medicine as a discipline, making possible "the domain of its experience and the structure of its rationality".[8] In other words, the observations and analysis of an object (for instance a diseased organ) depended entirely upon the accepted practices as outlined in the contemporary organisation of knowledge. Investigation, diagnosis and treatment all followed that contemporary organisation, in which case the criteria that distinguishes a diseased organ from a healthy one is thoroughly historical.
It's all the result of the Game, I suppose...
Post a Comment