Who knows what our lives will look like then.  Not this, I said.  And she said, So.  And if we had been at the seashore, perhaps it would have made a difference.  Perhaps the pages of the book would have clung one to the other, and who knows perhaps we would have missed an essential page.  But here we are.  Still, here we are.  And she will sleep tonight, and I will, too.  And where we go when dreaming is anyone’s guess.  He isn’t telling.  He never has.  Though he writes book after book and publishes the results and receives the accolades reserved for better men, who couldn’t care about such things and are more concerned with looking inwardly.  If looking were the right trope for what saints do when they retreat from the world not to look for God but to find what there is to love in the wilderness.

Vu un entretien de Sartre qui m’inspire l’idée suivante : chaque homme aurait en lui les virtualités de tous les autres. C’est-à-dire que nous serions tous détenteurs d’une somme identique de possibilités humaines, chacun contiendrait toutes les possibilités d’hommes, toutes les personnalités potentielles ; nos différences tiendraient seulement au fait que chez chacun, certaines de ces virtualités sont plus ou moins animées, développées, quand chez d’autres elles sont engourdies ou brisées.

Notre personnalité serait ainsi une combinaison unique de petites diodes allumées ou éteintes.

Et on admire untel sportif, philosophe ou astronaute, parce que sa performance témoigne de notre propre potentiel et sa simple existence nous dit « voilà, homme, ce que tu peux être ». Et on hait tel autre, râclure, sanguinaire, disgrâcieux, pour la même raison : son existence ravive en nous le dégoût de savoir que nous contenons des virtualités qui nous font peur et qu’on craindrait de voir se mettre à clignoter.

Cette vision des choses me semble très juste en ce qu’elle explique deux ambiguités :

• la similitude de fourmi des humains vs la singularité de l’individu (je suis unique comme n’importe qui d’autre),
• la dualité intérieur/extérieur, moi/les autres.

Je la trouve également très positive et profondément chrétienne.

I work for an online sports paraphernalia company that offers a wide variety of basketball apparel and equipment. So much so that potential customers are often confused about what to buy and what will ultimately fit their needs. The majority of the confusion pertains to basketball standards, hoops and goals and what each entails. Well, here’s the skinny on each.

Basketball Standard: Basketball standards are the most expensive of the bunch. They can be either portable or stationary. When you think basketball standard you should think of the type of basketball system that is used in the NBA or out on the playground. Simply put, a basketball standard is the entire package – rim, backboard, net and pole.

Basketball Hoop: When little Johnny writes to Santa Claus telling him he wants a basketball hoop for Christmas, he means that he wants the entire package. However, a basketball hoop is not quite the entire package. A basketball hoop is the combination of a rim, net and backboard, but no pole. Think of your high school gym. Yes, you probably had a basketball standard in there somewhere which the basketball team most likely used for real games. But you also had basketball hoops on the surrounding walls. That is what a basketball hoop is – a rim, net and backboard that can be fastened to an already existing structure.

Basketball Goal: The name of this particular piece of equipment get its name from its intended purpose. The word goal is something you strive towards. In sports, the goal is usually the place where you score points. Well, the same is true in basketball. The goal is just another name for the rim.

When purchasing sporting equipment, it is good to know the difference between the various technical terms associated with each individual sport. If you don’t, you may unintentionally buy something which you did not want.

This week has been so slow , I have not made the lease for the cab yet and today is the last day , lease is due tomorrow so in essence need to make the money today and it is very possible that I will today possible yes probable I doubt it , but it’s okay

Life is not only about making money , Life is what we do between the time we make money , Life  is such a mystery , after seeing the homeless people and their hunger I have started to re evaluate my life in all the angles , I have started to question if all the decisions I take in my life are sane , I have started to wonder if I am one bad decision away from being where they are , How did they get there ? how did they get there is a loaded question , the answer varies from one person to another , I have wondered if I should ask them or should I like everyone assume that they are either Lazy or into drugs or alcohol and give them some food every now and then and turn my face away and believe that it’s not my problem ….hmmmmm

Is that not too much for one cabbie to handle ? Kidding …. How do we really make a difference ? Do we make a difference?

Let’s ask ourselves that question and if the answer is yes then we are living a successful life , The difference does not have to be big or substantial as long as we make a difference …..

At that note I wish you all happy sunday and enjoy the day …..

I work for an online sports paraphernalia company that offers a wide variety of basketball apparel and equipment. So much so that potential customers are often confused about what to buy and what will ultimately fit their needs. The majority of the confusion pertains to basketball standards, hoops and goals and what each entails. Well, here’s the skinny on each.

Basketball Standard: Basketball standards are the most expensive of the bunch. They can be either portable or stationary. When you think basketball standard you should think of the type of basketball system that is used in the NBA or out on the playground. Simply put, a basketball standard is the entire package – rim, backboard, net and pole.

Basketball Hoop: When little Johnny writes to Santa Claus telling him he wants a basketball hoop for Christmas, he means that he wants the entire package. However, a basketball hoop is not quite the entire package. A basketball hoop is the combination of a rim, net and backboard, but no pole. Think of your high school gym. Yes, you probably had a basketball standard in there somewhere which the basketball team most likely used for real games. But you also had basketball hoops on the surrounding walls. That is what a basketball hoop is – a rim, net and backboard that can be fastened to an already existing structure.

Basketball Goal: The name of this particular piece of equipment get its name from its intended purpose. The word goal is something you strive towards. In sports, the goal is usually the place where you score points. Well, the same is true in basketball. The goal is just another name for the rim.

When purchasing sporting equipment, it is good to know the difference between the various technical terms associated with each individual sport. If you don’t, you may unintentionally buy something which you did not want.

Hello,

Thank you for stopping by.  My name is Stan Sher and I am the internet sales director at Teddy Nissan.  On behalf of our dealership I would like to welcome you to our blog page.  I will be sharing a lot of great news on here as well as information for our customers, friends, and family. 

We have officially been in business for over three months now and we are going strong.  We are very fortunate to have employed a great team of people in our dealership from the sales department all the way to the service and parts departments.  For me, it has been a pleasure to work for such an amazing dealership with such great people. 

I would like to invite you to come in and experience the difference of doing business with Teddy Nissan.  We are your huggable dealer.

Paul Outerbridge Jr.

(1896-1958)

American Photographer

Traditionally weddings always took place during the day mostly in the afternoon. However, like everything else in the world this has changed. Evening weddings have gained in popularity and more and more couples are choosing to have their wedding in the evening time. For many couples getting married the evening is a special time of romance and therefore the ideal time for a wedding.

An evening wedding can be a wonderful occasion for people to mingle and chat with old friends and family members that they have not seen for a long time. It also provides time for best friends to just have a great time together and enjoying dancing, music, drinks and cake. What better way to celebrate and have fun then an evening wedding. However, there is a certain etiquette that needs to be followed with an evening wedding and it is important to know the rules beforehand so you can come prepared and enjoy yourself.

As with many of the rules and etiquette guidelines of a wedding much of an evening wedding etiquette revolves around attire. It is therefore important to carefully plan what you will wear to an evening wedding. This article will help you make some of the important decisions on what to wear.

Bride and Grooms

According to most wedding etiquette guides and manuals there is not many special instructions for a evening wedding. They will end up wear the same attire they would for a daytime wedding. So they do not have much to worry about.

Attire and Dress for the Guests

However for the guests this is a little more complicated of an issue. They need to carefully think about what they will wear. The first thing to consider when choosing an outfit for a wedding is the wedding invitation. If you still have it good you will want to go back and check what the wedding invitation said if anything about the attire. Keep in mind the invitation might say something directly like “black tie event” or “Formal Event” or it might say something indirectly. If the wedding invitation is going to take place in the evening on the beach and the invitation has a beach theme to it then you can assume that the attire is less formal.

A good guide is to always be safe instead of sorry and the best way to ensure your are appropriately dressed is to call the bride or groom ahead of time. For the men trying to decide what to wear a call to the groom can make the decision easy. For the woman who is trying to make this difficult decision it can be smart to call the bride and ask her about the wedding and proper attire for the event. It is smart for women to also ask about color and themes of the wedding and pick clothes based on these.

For Men

If it is a formal wedding then men should wear a tuxedo or at least a very nice subtle suit. Often if you are not sure it is best to error on the side of being over dressed for the even and a dark colored suit traditionally looks the most formal. If you get there and feel out of place you can always take off the jacket and loosen the tie and you will fit right in.

For the Women

This is a bit more complicated and should be planned carefully. The most important aspect for women is to pick something attractive and something that is flattering yet not to much. You will want to make sure you look your best and catch a few of the men’s eyes at the event. However you don’t want to catch to many people’s eyes and look to great. It is important that you don’t steal the fire and attention from the bride. So the guide is to wear something that looks nice and but it should be subtle and understated or you risk making a quick enemy.

When choosing clothes and thinking about evening wedding etiquette again it is important to take the time and plan ahead. The best advice is to call the bride or groom and ask for some suggestions or ideas. They will often be more then happy and it is a great chance to talk with them a little before their big day.

I work for an online sports paraphernalia company that offers a wide variety of basketball apparel and equipment. So much so that potential customers are often confused about what to buy and what will ultimately fit their needs. The majority of the confusion pertains to basketball standards, hoops and goals and what each entails. Well, here’s the skinny on each.

Basketball Standard: Basketball standards are the most expensive of the bunch. They can be either portable or stationary. When you think basketball standard you should think of the type of basketball system that is used in the NBA or out on the playground. Simply put, a basketball standard is the entire package – rim, backboard, net and pole.

Basketball Hoop: When little Johnny writes to Santa Claus telling him he wants a basketball hoop for Christmas, he means that he wants the entire package. However, a basketball hoop is not quite the entire package. A basketball hoop is the combination of a rim, net and backboard, but no pole. Think of your high school gym. Yes, you probably had a basketball standard in there somewhere which the basketball team most likely used for real games. But you also had basketball hoops on the surrounding walls. That is what a basketball hoop is – a rim, net and backboard that can be fastened to an already existing structure.

Basketball Goal: The name of this particular piece of equipment get its name from its intended purpose. The word goal is something you strive towards. In sports, the goal is usually the place where you score points. Well, the same is true in basketball. The goal is just another name for the rim.

When purchasing sporting equipment, it is good to know the difference between the various technical terms associated with each individual sport. If you don’t, you may unintentionally buy something which you did not want.

I feel like too many people live their lives for themselves.  Sounds selfish, I know, but we all do it.  Too many Christians breathe day in and day out without making a change.  It’s kind of like John Mayer’s song, “waiting on the world to change,” but then immediately I think back to Ghandi’s classic statement, “be the change you want to see in the world.”

What if we started actually being the “change” that we want to see?

The truth is that you don’t have to have it all together before helping somebody.  You don’t have to be perfect.  You don’t have to have a college degree.  You don’t have to be rich.  You don’t have to be poor.  You don’t even have to be American.

You can be a normal person in the midst of a normal world who’s trying to do something that should be ordinary.

Because, really, everything that you are not… I AM is in you.

And once you believe that truth, you can change something for eternity.

It’s the morning after Thanksgiving (I would like to point out I am Australian, not American…Not that there’s anything wrong with that) got me thinking about how one takes to living in a  different country. I don’t mean making the change from Australia to New Zealand or America to Canada. I mean a big cultural change.

I live in Florence, Italy if those of you following haven’t caught that yet.

There are a tonne of Americans living the Rennaisance city as they seek the knowledge of Art history and fashion and what it will bring them in the future. Laying in bed last night listening to the drunken taunts and screaming coming from the mouths of American early twenty-somethings made me realise there are a lot of people who don’t really want the “cultural embrace”. I have been living here for 2 years, I speak Italian, I live with Italians, I HAD an Italian girlfriend my best friends are Italian. I didn’t know anyone when I arrived and I didn’t speak a word of Italian apart from “grazie” in a terrible accent. I would like to say, that after putting in the effort I have certainly embraced the culture.

My flatmate (American…… And please don’t think this post is anti-American) locks himself in his room 24/7. Eats in his room, generally goes into the kitchen when there’s no-one else around, never makes the effort to interact or give Italian life a chance. It’s a shame …. But he seems more like a lodger than a flatmate. We had a big lunch with 8 people including him and he didn’t say thank you at the end, nor did he contribute to the cooking, buying of the food, the conversation or the cleaning at the end. When the lunch was finished he went straight back into his room, needless to say it didn’t go down well with anyone in the house. It makes me wonder what the point is of coming over and living in an Italian house, he is honestly better off living with other Americans, not that it’s a bad thing- I just think it would suit him better and he’d be happy and a lot less awkward.

It’s funny, the saying “When in Rome, do as the Romans do” rings home in every sense when living abroad.

I have never lost my Australian pride or patriotism but living in Italy I would like to think I am having an Italian experience.

If I can give anyone a tip…. For what it’s worth from someone who has lived in 5 different countries. Be yourself, never let that change, but embrace everything your adopted country has to offer. Don’t go back home with a sour taste in your mouth thinking that you could have done more or that eating a piece of pizza counts as “a cultural experience”. There’s no such thing as “locals only” and if you make the effort they will treat you like a local. If you don’t- you will certainly feel a lot more outside the circle than what you need to be.

Hope you enjoyed this post and feel free to leave a comment.

Jordi,

PLUS.

www.plushostels.com

Words couldn’t convey my emotions on the idea of who I am….  Or better where I truly come from.

I live in a time where ‘difference’ is accepted & embraced.  When faces that are of a different color than mine, accept my hand in friendship, rather than refuse me in disgust.  It might seem to some as this were a thousand years ago, yet I am reminded that for a hundred years more my people were oppressed with not an inkling of hope to comfort them.

We speak of slavery as it were a myth, an imagination, or a bad dream.  Yet when I read books, watch films, and recollect on the past, I am reminded of how fortunate, blessed, and proud I am to have such a freedom.

To come from African-american descent, I come with a  history like no other.  Though to be part of one a race once considered not human, and of another that considered a human life worthless because of a difference of color, is an extreme indeed.

It is interesting indeed for me to use this particular day to recollect on such thoughts.  I could never comprehend the suffering, pain, loss, and devastation that the African race suffered in such times.  Praise be to God that their cries did not go unanswered.

If it had not been for such revolutionaries that heard our cries and fought for our lives when we could not fight for ourselves, I would not have the opportunity or legal freedom to speak the words of my own expression, let alone live a life I am fortunate to call my own.

We might celebrate the freedom of a country on Independence Day, or take a month dedicated to a people who’s story can never be forgotten…  But I take everyday of my life as a day lived in the honor of those who never were able to have the opportunity to taste the savor of a freedom that was long denied to them… unto their deaths.

May God save us from our blindness, if it is right for Him to do so.

Abolition of the British Slave Trade – Slave Trade Act, March 25th, 1807

Today, because I do this sort of thing, and often, I’ll be exploring the difference between being grateful and thankful.

They can be defined the same, perhaps. However, I’ll propose they’re not.

The possibilities are likely without limit. The opportunities to expand my own life’s vista, naught less than profound.

Or, I’ll get bogged down in endless nuance, and drive everyone around me, certainly within reach, utterly mad.

Nonetheless, If you’re reading this, and there are many of you that do, I don’t have to work too hard to represent and reflect both adjectives in good cheer. You are all in my life, in some form or fashion. I’m the one richer and better rounded for it.

Peace be to me Brothers and Sisters.

Brian Patrick Cork

Bags are like women’s bestfriends nowadays. Why is this so? Well, for one, bags keep their essential items, like wallets, make-up, or organizers, in place and safe. Secondly, bags are great accessories for women’s fashion statements. Imagine a high-end fashion statement of Louis Vuitton and Chanel along with stunning party dresses or even those casual-looking clothes. It is definitely a knockout look. But not everybody can afford an original Luis Vuitton or Chanel bag; they are super expensive items for any woman with taut budget.

Which is why replicas of expensive brands like them are swamping the fashion market these days, bag manufacturers realize the need and interest of low-income or average-income earners to have similar bags that are affordable yet providing the same quality material and design. Mind you, replicas of Chanel and Luis Vuitton are selling like hotcakes. Besides, who would want to spend thousands of dollars for an original item when you can always get the same look for less?

Is it worth it to buy the replicas then? Of course it is. If you have not tried buying one, then this is a must-read for you. You must understand these things before buying replica bags to keep you assured that replica bags are always worth buys after all.

1. Manufacturers of replicas buy original items prior to their replica production, which means they need the original model to base their replicas on. They evaluate everything about the original product, from the material to the design to the most intricate and insignificant detail. Even replicas have to meet certain standards; so in their goals of having an almost original item, they need to be strict on these matters.

2. Manufacturers are also particular about the brand’s logo. For instance, the LV or Chanel logos are studied very well, so they can copy the image as perfectly as possible and how it is placed on the bag.

3. Once the replica product is finished, they put it hand in hand with the original product on a table for final evaluation. Manufacturers have to completely make a final comparison of the two products because they want to make it sure that nothing can really be spotted on between the original and the replica. That is the main goal for their production, anyway.

So what is the real difference between the original LV or Chanel bags and the replica handbags? Well, as far as I can comment on, there is really no point in finding the difference because seeing the manufacturers methods in producing replicas are already undeniable proofs that originals and replicas are almost of the same quality and design.

Now, there is one remaining way though to tell the real difference, that is when you finally see the tag price attached to it. So if you are dreaming of a standout fashion that only costs you for less, then a replica handbag is the perfect way to go, without compromising the quality of your bag and your sense of style.

ARTE – 20h45 – jeudi 26/11       film de J.-M. Vallée avec Michel Côté, Marc-André Grondin, Daniel Proulx,

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2jt16_bande-annonce-crazy

Québec, 1966. Plus fragile que ses frères, Zac est asthmatique et mouille souvent son lit. Très croyante, sa mère pense qu’il a le don de guérir par la pensée. Fan d’Aznavour et de Patsy Cline, son père, un homme séduisant et viril, admire la sensibilité musicale de son fils. Zac chérit les rares moments de complicité qu’il vit avec lui. Mais quand il réclame un landau à la place du jeu de hockey qu’il a reçu pour Noël, son père lui oppose un non catégorique.

Rediffusions :
29.11.2009 à 00:45

www.arte.tv

Just what is “Daddy Solidarity”?  I found myself thinking about this when confronted with the phrase recently.

I had taken my son to a toddler singing group. The term should be used loosely as it is generally the parents feeling liberated to sing songs, clap hands, bang on the floor etc. – whilst the kids run around the room.

Mothers & babies: An intimidating sight for any Dad!

This was on another of my all too rare (and fleeting) Monday’s off – my Daddy Day-Care-Day as I’ve mentioned in previous posts.

Now I’m used to the fact that on a weekday, with a child I’m a rarity.  Much as we like to think about what a modern country we are (and we’re getting there) Mums still outnumber Dad’s on the toddler-social-scene – and I like to think I live in a particularly ‘right on’ (think Guardian-reading) area.

So, at this singing group I was one of two Dad’s.  The other Dad was a belting stereo-type of the aforementioned Guardian reader – bearded and wearing what I’d bet my life  was a shabby-chic, Oxfam bought jumper.  However, we’d exchanged the faint nod of recognition that, of those above the age of three – we were the solitary representatives of our gender.

The ‘group leader’ – we’ll call her Vera – noticed this and gleefully announced to the group: “At least we’ve got a bit of Daddy-solidarity today.”

Polite laughter and smiles all-round – but I was slightly put out by this.  It was as if it was prejudged I’d be incapable of having solidarity with some mothers.

I know, I know – from Mars & Venus and all that but since the arrival of my son I’m quite good with mothers – one even lives in my house.  Heck, I grew up with another one!

It wasn’t meant as an affront – perhaps I’m too sensitive.

Stubbornness & cold stares

If I am its only because of scarring, still raw from my first foray onto the toddler social scene.

My son (now nearing two) hadn’t even reached his first birthday at this point.  Poor lamb was suffering terribly from teething pains but ignorant of the world-stopping power of teething I’d gone ahead and at my wife’s insistence, taken him to a play group style event at a nearby village hall-style venue.

My son was already in a dangerously fragile mood when we arrived.  The sight of a room-full of strangers, singing, shouting and general toddler mayhem (which he’s a more than noisy part of now) tipped him over the edge.

This t-shirt sums-up my son's feelings!

I’d lost him from that point already – but it was the patronising looks and pity-filled stares that made the stubborn arse in me blunder on.

The room was full of mothers (I was the only Dad on this occasion – a far more frequent occurence) and I could see it on all their faces: “Oh – he probably never looks after his son – doesn’t know what he’s doing.  No wonder the baby’s crying.”

I tried everything: toys; cajoling; cuddles; talking; reassuring; milk; in the pushchair; out of the pushchair; in a quiet room etc. etc.  (parents will be familiar with the plethora of options one comes up with when trying to soothe a crying child!)

None of it worked.  Of course it didn’t – my poor son was in pain from his teeth and I should have taken him home to bed.  I did in the end and Calpol’ed up he slept for an eternity.

There wasn’t much solidarity that day though – Daddy or otherwise.

I’m a bit groggy this morning. Last night my three year old daughter smacked her forehead against the coffee table and we had to take a trip to the emergency room. Seven stitches and five hours later we finally got home around one thirty in the morning and then didn’t get asleep until four or four thirty. I’m amazed at how well she handled everything. She was a real trooper. After the initial shock of all the blood– and boy do heads ever bleed! –she was rather nonchalant about the whole thing, making offhand remarks like “I bumped my head a little! I hit my head on table. Blood was everywhere! Sometimes that happens!” in an amused voice and, while calmly playing before leaving for the ER, “I don’t need to see a doctor and we don’t have any bandaids”. We danced in the hospital room and she charmed all the nurses and doctors. After everything was over she actually didn’t want to leave as she was having so much fun. That’s my girl! What a ham and little attention addict. At any rate, hopefully I’ll make some sense in this post.

Responding to a couple of my posts from earlier this week on translation, Nate over at Un-canny Ontology writes:

What is translation? And why do some things get translated and others do not?

Translation is more than a simple replication. Translation always involves a certain degree of interpretation in which what is inputted is always changed or transformed – from photons of light to complex sugars. Objects translate each other, they change each other without encountering each other directly, which means that objects first and foremost recognize each other.

I am pretty uncomfortable with Nate’s talk of objects “knowing” each other and “recognizing” each other as I think this implies a degree of intentionality (in the phenomenological sense) that only belongs to a subset of objects (humans, many animals, certain computer systems perhaps, social systems), not all objects. In my view, it’s necessary to distinguish between reflexive objects capable of registering their own states and relations to other entities like social systems or cognitive systems, and non-reflexive objects that do not have this characteristic. In other words, where non-reflexive objects are in question it’s important to emphasize that intentionality is not required for translation to take place and be operative in relations between objects.

read on!

Nonetheless, when this qualification is made, I do think Nate is asking a good question. I’m of two minds about this question. On the one hand, my initial thought is that it is not for philosophy to answer how translation takes place in any specific relation between objects. Initially this response might look like a dodge; however, it is premised on a distinction between the sort of thing philosophy does and the sort of thing other disciplines do.

Since I am on a Bhaskar kick lately, this point can be illustrated by analogy to Bhaskar’s ontology. Bhaskar asks the transcendental question “what must the world be like in order for our sciences to be possible?” Among his answers is the thesis that things must be structured and differentiated, they must be capable of acting without us knowing them or being aware of them (his generative mechanisms), they must be capable of acting without producing effects in all cases, they must have powers or capabilities, it must be possible to form more or less closed systems (for experiment to be possible and significant), and in open systems these generative mechanisms must be capable of acting without producing the sorts of effects we encounter when triggering a generative mechanism in the closed system of an experimental setting.

Bhaskar’s thesis is that the world must be this way for our science to be possible and for our practice of experimentation to be intelligible; however, his ontological claims about what the world must be like do not tell us what generative mechanisms actually exist, how they are structured, what powers or capabilities they have, and so on. What generative mechanisms exist is a task for direct inquiry in various disciplines, not something that philosophy can answer a priori. The case is similar with respect to translation. Philosophy can tell us that objects must translate one another when they interact and therefore draw our attention to the differences produced in interaction, but it has nothing of its own to say about what translation machines or mechanisms actually exist and how they are structured. This is the job of inquiry in other disciplines. Thus, for example, it falls to the biologist to investigate how leaves translate light into energy. Likewise, it falls to folks like Nate in the field of rhetoric to investigate how audiences are selectively open to certain speech-performances and how these performances on the part of a rhetor are translated by audiences into something else.

Nonetheless, and this is my second point, we can make some very general ontological claims about what objects must be like for translation to be possible. Hopefully these theses somewhat address Nate’s question. My tendency at present is to think of translation in terms of information theory. This should come as no surprise as the ontic principle is, in many respects, adapted from Bateson’s definition of information as “the difference that makes a difference.” So how should this be understood?

First, the concept of information is to be distinguished from that of noise. Information, as a difference that makes a difference, is something that stands out in contrast to noise. If, for example, a student in an introductory philosophy course has great difficulty reading Derrida’s essay “Differance”, this is not because the text is difficult or poorly written, but because the student, having just come to philosophy for the first time, lacks the background in philosophy that would allow the student to encounter the elements of the text as information. Everything in the essay seems significant and as a result it all becomes noise insofar as nothing can be distinguished in the essay by the student. Information can thus be thought in Gestalt terms as a relation between what leaps into the foreground (information) and what passes into the background (noise).

It’s important to note that for self-reflexive intentional objects like students, this relationship between foreground is a dynamic, not fixed, relation. Not only can these systems evolve such that elements that before were mere noise can take on the status of information, but also relations between foreground and background can shift back and forth, such that something that a moment ago belonged to the domain of noise now comes to the fore as information or a difference that makes a difference.

Second, and of great importance, it should be noted that information and noise are not ontological properties of the world, but are object-specific properties. There is no information “out there” in and of itself. Rather, objects “constitute” information for themselves. The idea that information exists “out there” and not simply for an object constitutes a sort of transcendental illusion within ontology that I’ll have to write about in the future. To put this point differently, information is only information for an object. Likewise, noise is only noise for an object. It is not the world that is disordered or chaotic, but rather the world for an object that is disordered or chaotic. Here I am drawing on the manner in which information is thought by systems theory and autopoietic theory.

Third, objects are only selectively open to other objects in the world. Take the example of sitting at a coffee shop with friends. All sorts of things recede into the background in this situation: the actions of the staff, the conversations of other people, the traffic that could be discerned through the window, the talking head babbling away on the television, the music playing in the background, etc. In this scenario we only share selective relations to the world about us. The rest largely disappears until another shift takes place in relations between foreground and background.

It now becomes possible to say a few very general things about the ontology of translation and what must be the case in order for translation to be possible. First, there must be an ontological distinction between stimuli and information. The term “stimulus” is not the happiest term as it still implies a reference to a receiving object. However, I would like to stipulate this term not as a reference to a receiving object, but rather treat it as a difference transmitted by another object. At any given time there are all sorts of stimuli flying about in the world that are not information for various objects. Thus, for example, at this very moment there are all sorts of radio signals pulsing through the air about me. These signals are real things that are out there. However, for me they scarcely exist and are not information as I have no way of receiving them. In order to receive them I need an additional black box– my nifty new iPhone or my computer –that can function as a mediator allowing me to relate to these stimuli.

Second, if there is a difference between information and stimuli, and if stimuli exist in all sorts of ways without being information, it follows that information is not something that is already out there, but rather is constituted by objects receiving these stimuli. This, I think, approaches Nate’s initial question. For information to be possible, certain things have to be true of objects. On the one hand, it is necessary that objects (generative mechanisms) exist that emit stimuli. On the other hand, objects must have channels and an internal structure (endo-relational structure) that organizes these stimuli into differences that make a difference. Channels are modes of openness to other objects in the world, while endo-relational structure, in part, is the mechanism by which stimuli are transformed into differences that make a difference.

Thus, for example, no matter how much I talk to a rock, I cannot compel that rock to get out of my way. While the sound-waves of my voice might indeed affect the rock in a variety of ways because the rock has channels for receiving differences in this sort of causal way, the rock cannot encounter those sound-waves as speech because it does not possess channels or an endo-relational structure for constituting sound-waves (stimuli) as speech (information) in the manner of other reflexive objects. Likewise, last night I could not heal my daughter’s wound through speech; however, when I function as a psychoanalyst for someone else, it is possible to cure a psychoanalytic symptom through the intervention of speech. The channels and endo-relational structure that constitute openness to different forms of difference are something that must be surveyed in every instance and that cannot be determined by philosophy a priori.

This point can be further illustrated with respect to the periodic table of elements. The periodic table is not simply a summary of what we’ve discovered about the endo-relational structure of various elements, but also, for those who know how to read us, tells the chemist, biologist, and physicist all sorts of things about channels or different possibilities of relation that can take place between elements. On the one hand, each element is a generative mechanism capable of producing a variety of actualities. On the other hand, elements are only capable of selectively relating to one another according to very precise laws and these relations generate new properties or actualizations when they take place.

A couple of further points. Over at the Pinnochio Theory, Shaviro riffs on Nate’s post and my own, writing:

I think that the source of this problem, in Nathan’s account, is the following. He says that ” objects first and foremost recognize each other,” precisely because — here paraphrasing Levi, and also to an extent Graham Harman — “objects translate each other, they change each other without encountering each other directly.” But as I’ve said before, my biggest disagreement with both Levi and Graham is that, for me, objects do encounter each other directly.

There’s a lot more in Steven’s post, but I wanted to zero in on this particular remark as I think it conflates my position with Harman’s. For Harman objects are absolutely independent or withdrawn from one another such that you get the question of how they can enter into relations with one another. Within my proposed ontology, objects do touch one another. What that don’t do is represent one another in the manner of a mirror representing an object. Rather, every relation between objects is a translation and every translation involves transformation. In certain respects, this places me closer to Latour and Whitehead in the sense that I do not place objects behind absolute “firewalls” as Graham does. Where I differ from Latour and Whitehead, is in holding that objects have a being that is not reducible to their relations to other objects (their endo-relational structure), and that the relations objects do entertain to other objects are selective. Where Whitehead and Latour hold that each actual occasion holds a definite relation to every other actual occasion in the entire universe, I hold that 1) objects only share relations to other particular objects and are unrelated to a number of other objects in the universe, and 2) that even if all other objects in the universe were to cease existing a particular object could continue to exist (something that is impossible in Whitehead’s and Latour’s universe). In part I believe this must be the case as inquiry would become impossible were objects to be related to all other objects as it would no longer be possible to form more or less closed systems within which inquiry takes place. Insofar as inquiry clearly does take place it follows that this thesis cannot be true.

My gloss on the “occasional” in Latour is thus somewhat different than Harman’s. Discussing Latour’s reference to occasions in Prince of Networks, Harman writes, “A thing is not separate from its relations [for Latour], and in fact ‘each element is to be defined by its associations and is an event created at the occasion of each of those associations’ (Pandora’s Hope, 165, emphasis added by Harman)” (80). Where Harman reads this as a reference to the philosophical doctrine of occasionalism, I read the reference to occasions in temporal terms as in the case of referring to things like “on this great occasion…” To speak of objects entering into relations with one another in occasions is thus to refer to the selective and limited nature of those relations, along with the fact that objects contingently encounter one another or encounter one another in an aleatory fashion. I would differ from Latour here in hold that it is not the occasion or the relations that make the object the object. The occasions can modify the manner in which the object actualizes itself, but this is quite different from suggesting that the object is its relations.

Despite these ontological differences, Harman and I do arrive at similar conclusions. If I am comfortable talking about objects “withdrawing” from one another then this is because translations that take place within an object always differ from the other object that instigates the translation or provides the input for the process of translation. The other day I came across this comment over at Another Heidegger Blog:

Why do you not address the most obvious problem of why vicar’s (representations) are central to the mechanism of causation between two inanimate objects?

Do you read as coherent that when a baseball hurls into a windshield it must FIRST send a representation of itself INTO the glass, and then it must brush this “vicar” into a state of phenomenenal breakdown, a breakdown which THEN results in the baseball cracking the glass? Does this make any sense to you? Aside from projecting a human caricature of experience and cognition, in what way does this actually seem to reveal how objects interact without human beings?

This is an example of what I would call an uncharitable interpretation of Harman’s position. It is important that we understand just what I have in mind by the “principle of charity”. The principle of charity does not consist in passively endorsing another position or refraining from criticism. Rather, the principle of charity is a necessary condition for philosophical discourse, requiring that we present the positions of other thinkers in the most reasonable and plausible light before proceeding to criticism of that position. Working on the premise that our interlocutor is a reasonable and intelligent person that genuinely wants to get at the truth, explain features of the world, and understand things– a premise that should be granted at the beginning of dialogue and revoked only when proven otherwise –we should ask ourselves, with respect to our interpretations of the positions of others, “is this a position that a reasonable person would endorse or advocate?” If our impression of another’s position is that it is batshit crazy insane, then it is likely we have misinterpreted the other person’s position, not that the author is making the absurd claim. Note, that the claim that a position is reasonable or a position that a rational agent could hold is not equivalent to the claim that the position is true. Of course, it comes as no surprise that this person’s reading of Harman would be so uncharitable, given that he confesses he’s only read of Harman’s theory of causality as developed in his early work presented at the speculative realism conference, and that he has not actually read Tool Being, Guerilla Metaphysics, or Prince of Networks.

The characterization of Harman’s position above is clearly absurd. Harman’s thesis is not that objects must first encounter other objects under the form of a “sensuous vicar” and then relate to them. Nor is it an anthropomorphization of relations between objects. Rather, Harman’s thesis is that objects only relate to one another selectively with respect to particular qualities, never exhaustively in terms of all the qualities that an object might possess or be capable of. Austin over at Complete Lies drives this point home nicely in his recent post on Harman’s theory of vicarious causation:

In Aristotle’s Categories he distinguishes between subjects and predicates. The Greek word for “subject” is hypokeimenon (ὑποκείμενον) meaning “underlying thing.” Essentially, it is that which is predicated but remains beneath the layers of predicates. We can also understand this through substance and accidents. The substance of the thing is that which the accidents adhere to without itself becoming anything fundamentally new. My car is still a car even if I have it painted a new colour for instance. The predicate “silver” does not alter the substance “car” in any substantial way. So there are substances and there are accidents. Great. The chief occasionalist insight to be made here is through the chain of causality. The position is one that says substances don’t touch each other. Let’s use an example. When I have a relationship with a person, there is more to that person than our interactions. Let us assume it is a romantic relationship between lover and beloved. Does this relation exhaust the other’s being? Is it not the case that there is far more to the person than their relation to me? While we would likely share much of our lives with each other, there remains a fundamental gap between the two of us. Don’t we interact on the level of accidents and not substance? When I talk to or touch my girlfriend, there is always more to her than these interactions. This is also the case for my interactions with non-human objects, for instance the relationship I have to the laptop I am writing this on. There are infinite possibilities for relations within a thing, it can interact with practically anything else in the universe in any number of ways, none of which could exhaust its possibilities. This is the point of the fire and cotton example. Cotton can do a lot more than burn, and the fire only engages the cotton on that level and not on the part of the cotton (to use improper language) that could become denim or a Q-Tip. While the fire destroys the cotton, this does not mean it has exhausted those potentialities, it has simply destroyed them.

The point is that there is always more possibilities open to any object than those actualized in any particular relation the object enters into. In many respects, then, Harman’s claim can be understood in counterfactual terms. One of his key points regarding the inexhaustibility of objects pertains to the inexhaustibility of their possible relations. If objects are always in excess of or more than their relations, if they only relate to one another under particular aspects or in terms of “sensuous vicars”, then this is because there is always an excess of other relations they could enter into under different aspects. I hope to expand on this a bit in the near future in terms of the sorts of transcendental illusions generated through the process of translation, giving transcendental illusion not an epistemological grounding restricted to thought or the human-world gap, but an ontological grounding.

flock of seagulls meeting sporty spice, that could a good definition of la roux’s singer, elly jackson (born 1988).

i can’t say i like her physically, but it’s a pleasure to see how successful such a gender bending woman has become in the uk. i don’t know if she is gay or not, but that doesn’t matter. the important thing is: difference. difference from the average heterosexist popstar, difference from the mainstream woman in the entertainment industry, difference from the brainwashed feminity.

so thanks elly. next step would do to drop your musically limited partner and make some good music. i like bulletproof though.

A factor that is driving the trend towards automating the sales department is the extent to which speed has become a strategic advantage in the selling process. Once, it was acceptable for salespeople to promise to get back to customers with answers to questions. Increasingly, those salespeople are finding that by the time they get back to their customers with the necessary information, the sales opportunity has evaporated. The ability to respond to customers quickly is crucial to success, and the tolerances are narrower than ever before.

Similarly, the ability to compress the sales order cycle is becoming an extremely significant factor in a competitive situation. Your customers, who are under the same competitive pressures as you, are placing more and more emphasis on increased cash flow and reduced inventories. Reducing your sales order cycle from four days to two can make an important and measurable difference, certainly enough of a difference to determine whether or not you get the order.

My Consultancy–Asif J. Mir - Management Consultant–transforms organizations where people have the freedom to be creative, a place that brings out the best in everybody–an open, fair place where people have a sense that what they do matters. For details please visit www.asifjmir.com, and my Lectures.

En lisant le billet quotidien du gourou marketing Seth Godin, j’ai eu un petit malaise ce matin. Il traite des accents. Comme dans cet extrait, il décrit ce qu’il entend par accent qu’il soit parlé ou écrit.

Not only the way you speak—but the way you write and act. More than geography, accents now represent a choice of attitude.

Let’s define an accent as the way someone speaks (writes, acts) that’s different from the way I do it. So, if I’m from Liverpool and you’re from Texas, you have an accent, I don’t.

Occasionally, an accent is a marketing advantage. Sounding like Sean Connery might be seen as charming in a New York singles’ bar, or sounding like a Harvard man might help a neurologist in Miami Beach.

Je comprends très bien qu’il parle des accents “marketing” ou des différents angles que nous pouvons donner à nos messages pour créer une différence mais, je ne peux m’empêcher de penser aux accents “québécois” dans le paysage d’affaires nord américain. Le passage qui m’a fait titiller est celui-ci:

Generally, though, if I think you’ve got an accent, it’s more difficult to trust you.

Seth Godin ne fait aucunement référence à l’accent québécois dans son billet et c’est ce qui le rend si percutant à mes yeux. En gros son discours se résume à ceci:

• Perception d’un accent= exotique=différence= crédibilité+ confiance affectés négativement

Il décrit un comportement humain tout à fait naturel. La différence est souvent difficile à supporter. Imaginez, le New Yorkais trouve que le Texan a un accent et ils sont tous deux citoyens américains. Le trust factor du New Yorkais face au Texan est affecté et vice versa à cause de cela. Le québécois a l’air tout droit sorti d’un autre continent dans ce contexte! (j’exagère à peine.)

Après avoir oeuvré pendant plus de 12 ans au sein de PMEs ayant pour marché l’Amérique du Nord, force est d’admettre que Seth Godin est assez représentatif de l’homme d’affaires nord-américain moyen.

Même s’il y a des milliers d’entrepreneurs québécois et dirigeants de PMEs baragouinant l’anglais qui ont réussi à faire leur place aux USA, il en demeure pas moins que beaucoup d’entre eux sont partis désavantagés par rapport à leurs concurrents qui “sonnaient” mieux au oreilles des prospects américains ou anglo-canadiens. C’est tout à leur honneur car ils ont surmonté cet obstacle.

Même si nos propos sont tout à fait rationnels et remplis de bon sens, que notre offre produits est concurrentielle, que notre service est supérieur à la moyenne, notre accent québécois, lorsque nous parlons anglais, vient affecter le niveau de confiance que les gens nous accorde. Je sais que ce n’est pas rationnel et que c’est ridicule mais je l’ai expérimenté de nombreuses fois. Ce n’est pas que mon accent soit si épouvantable mais que voulez-vous, les francophones qui ont appris l’anglais ailleurs qu’à la maison via les cours d’anglais du Ministère de l’Éducation ont souvent un accent. Une faible minorité ont cette capacité à switcher de l’anglais au francais ou du francais à l’anglais sans que ca paraisse.

Heureusement, plus souvent qu’autrement, j’ai l’impression que le côté européen ou exotique de la langue francaise dans notre bilinguisme nord-américain nous permet de nous distinguer et de créer un élément distinctif qui laisse sa marque et fait oublier les aspects agacants d’un accent franco pour un anglo.

Et vous, dans votre pratique, votre accent vous nuit-il?

Amuser ou divertir?

Amuser, c’est faire passer le temps avec agrément, s’il s’agit de quelque chose qui plaît. Mais cela aussi explique pourquoi amuser a, en outre, le sens d’abuser, de repaître de vaines espérances. Divertir, c’est, étymologiquement, détourner l’esprit, et, au sens que ce verbe a pris, tourner l’esprit vers des choses agréables. Aussi divertir est-il plus expressif qu’amuser, et les divertissements sont plus vifs que les amusements. L’usage de la conversation tend beaucoup à délaisser le verbe divertir, et par conséquent à donner à amuser tout le terrain que perd celui-là.

Distraire ou divertir ?

De ces deux mots, l’un signifie, étymologiquement, tirer de côté et d’autre, l’autre tourner de côté et d’autre. Mais de là ils ont pris respectivement une signification qui les différencie : le divertissement est beaucoup plus que la distraction ; on se divertit quand on se livre à divers amusements, tels que spectacles, bals, fêtes, repas ; pour se distraire, il n’est pas besoin de tout cela ; il suffit de quelques plaisirs même solitaires, de quelques simples satisfactions.

(Source : Surpris ou étonné ?Nuances et subtilités des mots de la langue française. Larousse, 2005)