Appreciate Letters To Coaches

The Unbearable Lightness of power.

Kalfou My dear, that the netbook is the technician.
moment of silence, por favor .
Not that there was not much backupped apart - hello, Murphy - the recorded lectures and a couple of other things are not lethal, but that cause me discomfort. But the lessons
registered for the examination of 10 ...

Anyway, after you wander up to the technician in the grip of traditional moral-existential killing you when you no longer captures your computer, I consoled so little extrovert.
First I went to get a supply of wire and copper wire and other such trifles, so that now another idol steampunk composed of spirals of metal bolts and the radiator expected to be completed - has a halo beads yellow-green and will have a rosary around his neck in green-yellow metal finishes. It's called Aristide Kebreu or Alain D'Hozier, your choice - is the concept houngan a white-skinned, pale as a bone. The Hoodoo becomes more syncretic if bleached, do not you, my ambulatory Dead? At the hardware store
stage is followed in the library, where I ordered The ultimate goal of creating ( Green River Rising ). The library should have send an SMS notification upon arrival of the book, but in Italian the conditional has its sacredness, so I took advantage of the tragedy with fatalism computer to go and pick up a novel that I could be reached.
I can not recommended, because these prisons and I'm biased. I might add that the portrait is described emphasizing the prison panoptic and that our dear Bentham explicitly called into question. Our dear Bentham that one day I could deepen, while accumulation invective against him. The novel suggests to me that a study on ' enlightened jurist could not be bad - a field study, the novel suggests.
When I plan a week of assiduous study of the library of Political Science to draft an index of the thesis - I graduate in July, my potential criminals - that will explain how the Rhodesians compounds in general and control structures of De Beers had little theoretical basis on which the structure was built apartheid. Apart-heid. A word that sums up the connection that Foucault has drawn between prisons, hospitals and colleges on the one hand and the rest of society on the other.
But anyway.
Development calli index, middle and inches while reiterate self-torture accidentally slipping wire under the fingernails. Should I take a shower, but the tragedy has upset my computer habits - and think of times when I was able to forsake myself for days, cleaning minimized until the hair is not taking the odd appearance of indifference, and I knew then drawn from this lack of care, transfer energy from elsewhere. Indeed, the defeated countenance sharpened the researcher in me, making me more intellectual. Meaning neglect.
and some entries you inflict this verb, "meaning", and not in the sense of "having a certain meaning," but in the opposite: "to give some meaning."

the term means is a semiotic concept which indicates the relationship between a signifier and meaning. It has to do with the wealth way typical of every person, object, element of the natural landscape. Everything appears not as an abstract element, but it is sensible for us now, with certain characteristics.
The concept of meaning is not to be confused with that of communication. When we talk about communication, we refer to the process by which someone (the issuer) transmit something (the message) to someone else (the recipient).
In the case of significance, however, the issuer is not present, except as a sort of projection of the recipient. To do all the work of communication interpretation is precisely the recipient, who decides to consider a certain element of reality as message, or more precisely a sign, a representation of the relationship between signifier and meaning.

is a little word-concept that I love, because it reveals mechanisms for granted. It explains how God could be the center of the world of a guy 600 years ago, and like today that God no longer exists - ie, no more meaning. Explain how God existed 600 years ago and now no longer exists, as both statements are true and not contradictory, because every human being means something different. Explain why the Krauts have a word meaning "pleasure caused by the misfortune of others "( Schadenfreude ) and we do not. But the question becomes more interesting when a language has a word that another language can not even explain (although I hated the existing optical 4dummies asserts that anyone can understand anything). There is a marked difference in worldview between the joint Italian and English, a sharp difference between the future British and Italian ones - hence the difficulty to understand the richness of Anglo-subjunctive in Italian and Italian to understand the wealth of the future in English.
But it is undemocratic to say that not everyone can understand everything. Kill the principle that all beings humans are the same ("A suggested as an ideal?" I always ask) and therefore the liberating practice of being condescending towards others a priori, even if we do not understand, especially if you do not understand. I toyed with the mental image of a white European who makes charity to the enjoyment of the African population unknown to him, in whose language there is only one word for "white hypocrite that you clear your conscience by helping the black who does not know."
The current language requires that the words do not refer to things actually existing, but concepts. Even when we say "dog" we are not referring to a person actually exists, but one category - and this category varies speaking in tongue. The "dog" in Italian is like a medium sized dog, a "Hund" in Kiel refers to a size larger. You argue that my dogs are always, I will object that is the human being to decide where you put the boundary between "dog" and "wolf" - on the basis of eminent scientific studies ever carried out by humans. A branch of linguistics
force says that every language divides the world into different compartments, never covers everything. The Italian lexicon does not have a compartment called "Schadenfreude ", so that Italians are used to form the compartments. The compartment "eat" can be divided into endless compartments in German - and you will resist that are all synonyms for "eat", and I will oppose that perfect synonymy does not exist, because when there is - historically - a decade of two synonyms for lack of utility. I will oppose that, if translated, could be explained - we will oppose that Vergangenheitsbewältigung can be explained , but explain it will not make substantial as it is in German - if it were, forty Italians would not do jokes about Jews. We will take
also untranslatable difference between können dürfen and that does not exist in Italian to the point of view echoed this kind of exchange:
"I could not ( dürfen ) To do otherwise. "
" Yes you could ( können ), but did not want to do it. "
I often such discussions, in which I try to differentiate the" power like having the power to do something ( können ) " by "the power as they are entitled (by someone or some situation or normal) to do something ( dürfen ). The" ability to ( können ) live six days without eating "and" can not ( dürfen ) smoking in public places "are different things. können dürfen and are not synonymous, but in Italian are incorporated in a single compartment," power ".
I find the existence of the two verbs in the German language is a good thing: to force some honesty with oneself. Of course one could argue that even if the Krauts have a modal to say "they're allowed to," then, well, so must keep to the rules - but this is a trivial enough repeated, and the fine line between personal responsibility and discharging on external standards in all of us there, as even the Krauts sometimes tend to abuse können.