Fragmenti

[Prospero]

Who would want to have to talk always with intellectual skunks, with kim philby who study only for the purpose of finding new dead ends in every corner of the world!

Who would want to have to talk always with intellectual skunks, with buffalo bill who study only for the purpose of finding new dead ends in every corner of the world! :( Fak, kime, oboji nas istom četkom. Nisi ti nikakav marxista...

[Prospero]

http://filmhiradok.nava.hu/watch.php?id=3869Entoni Idn dolazi u BG Aeroputovom Lokid Elektrom, sa sve himnom iz tri dela.

[hazard]

Mozda malo bajato po datumu, ali svejedno interesantno i opservacije verovatno jos uvek vaze:http://richarddawkins.net/articles/3502-matthew-parris-as-an-atheist-i-truly-believe-africa-needs-god

Matthew Parris: As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs GodBy TIMES ONLINEAdded: Thursday, 08 January 2009 at 1:00 AMReposted from:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.eceBefore Christmas I returned, after 45 years, to the country that as a boy I knew as Nyasaland. Today it's Malawi, and The Times Christmas Appeal includes a small British charity working there. Pump Aid helps rural communities to install a simple pump, letting people keep their village wells sealed and clean. I went to see this work.It inspired me, renewing my flagging faith in development charities. But travelling in Malawi refreshed another belief, too: one I've been trying to banish all my life, but an observation I've been unable to avoid since my African childhood. It confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit my world view, and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God.Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.I used to avoid this truth by applauding - as you can - the practical work of mission churches in Africa. It's a pity, I would say, that salvation is part of the package, but Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. I would allow that if faith was needed to motivate missionaries to help, then, fine: but what counted was the help, not the faith.But this doesn't fit the facts. Faith does more than support the missionary; it is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing.First, then, the observation. We had friends who were missionaries, and as a child I stayed often with them; I also stayed, alone with my little brother, in a traditional rural African village. In the city we had working for us Africans who had converted and were strong believers. The Christians were always different. Far from having cowed or confined its converts, their faith appeared to have liberated and relaxed them. There was a liveliness, a curiosity, an engagement with the world - a directness in their dealings with others - that seemed to be missing in traditional African life. They stood tall.At 24, travelling by land across the continent reinforced this impression. From Algiers to Niger, Nigeria, Cameroon and the Central African Republic, then right through the Congo to Rwanda, Tanzania and Kenya, four student friends and I drove our old Land Rover to Nairobi.We slept under the stars, so it was important as we reached the more populated and lawless parts of the sub-Sahara that every day we find somewhere safe by nightfall. Often near a mission.Whenever we entered a territory worked by missionaries, we had to acknowledge that something changed in the faces of the people we passed and spoke to: something in their eyes, the way they approached you direct, man-to-man, without looking down or away. They had not become more deferential towards strangers - in some ways less so - but more open.This time in Malawi it was the same. I met no missionaries. You do not encounter missionaries in the lobbies of expensive hotels discussing development strategy documents, as you do with the big NGOs. But instead I noticed that a handful of the most impressive African members of the Pump Aid team (largely from Zimbabwe) were, privately, strong Christians. "Privately" because the charity is entirely secular and I never heard any of its team so much as mention religion while working in the villages. But I picked up the Christian references in our conversations. One, I saw, was studying a devotional textbook in the car. One, on Sunday, went off to church at dawn for a two-hour service.It would suit me to believe that their honesty, diligence and optimism in their work was unconnected with personal faith. Their work was secular, but surely affected by what they were. What they were was, in turn, influenced by a conception of man's place in the Universe that Christianity had taught.There's long been a fashion among Western academic sociologists for placing tribal value systems within a ring fence, beyond critiques founded in our own culture: "theirs" and therefore best for "them"; authentic and of intrinsically equal worth to ours.I don't follow this. I observe that tribal belief is no more peaceable than ours; and that it suppresses individuality. People think collectively; first in terms of the community, extended family and tribe. This rural-traditional mindset feeds into the "big man" and gangster politics of the African city: the exaggerated respect for a swaggering leader, and the (literal) inability to understand the whole idea of loyal opposition.Anxiety - fear of evil spirits, of ancestors, of nature and the wild, of a tribal hierarchy, of quite everyday things - strikes deep into the whole structure of rural African thought. Every man has his place and, call it fear or respect, a great weight grinds down the individual spirit, stunting curiosity. People won't take the initiative, won't take things into their own hands or on their own shoulders.How can I, as someone with a foot in both camps, explain? When the philosophical tourist moves from one world view to another he finds - at the very moment of passing into the new - that he loses the language to describe the landscape to the old. But let me try an example: the answer given by Sir Edmund Hillary to the question: Why climb the mountain? "Because it's there," he said.To the rural African mind, this is an explanation of why one would not climb the mountain. It's... well, there. Just there. Why interfere? Nothing to be done about it, or with it. Hillary's further explanation - that nobody else had climbed it - would stand as a second reason for passivity.Christianity, post-Reformation and post-Luther, with its teaching of a direct, personal, two-way link between the individual and God, unmediated by the collective, and unsubordinate to any other human being, smashes straight through the philosphical/spiritual framework I've just described. It offers something to hold on to to those anxious to cast off a crushing tribal groupthink. That is why and how it liberates.Those who want Africa to walk tall amid 21st-century global competition must not kid themselves that providing the material means or even the knowhow that accompanies what we call development will make the change. A whole belief system must first be supplanted.And I'm afraid it has to be supplanted by another. Removing Christian evangelism from the African equation may leave the continent at the mercy of a malign fusion of Nike, the witch doctor, the mobile phone and the machete.

[Jolly Roger]

Pedeset razloga za voljeti Wittgensteina01. Jer je najradije volio ulogu propalog aristokrate.02. Jer nije nikada zapisao “Heil Hitler”, kao Heidegger, i nikada nije slijedio Komunističku partiju, kao Jean-Paul Sartre.03. Jer je vjerovao u prijateljstvo. Prijatelj, rekao je, jeste neko s kim možeš prodiskutirati kilometre besmislica.04. Jer ga je sve do smrti pratila sablast Otta Weiningera, izmučenog i suicidnog profete mržnje prema samome sebi.05. Jer je odbacio porodično nasljeđe koje bi učinilo od njega jednog od najvećih bogataša u Evropi.06. Jer je jedan od rijetkih savjeta što ih je posljednjih godina davao studentima bio ovaj: ”U životu se ne smijete prenatrpavati”.07. Jer je zaista bio potreban neko ko će očistiti Augijeve štale intelektualnog svijeta. Wittgenstein je bio iznenađen kad su mu odredili taj zadatak.08. Jer je ismijavao Russellovu ideju da ustanovi Svjetsku organizaciju za mir i slobodu. ”Pretpostavljam da bi vi radije ustanovili Svjetsku organizaciju za rat i ropstvo”. Wittgenstein: ”Da, baš tako”.09. Jer je proglašavao da filozof ne pripada nikakvoj idejnoj zajednici. Upravo zbog te radikalne stranosti i jeste filozof.10. Jer je izdavaču svojega djela Tractatus logico-philosophicus predlagao da knjizi doda tucet praznih stranica na kojima će čitalac moći ispljuvati svoju mržnju jer nije ništa razumio: savjetovao mu je da na naslovnu stranicu odštampa njegov datum i sat rođenja, da onaj koji vjeruje u astrologiju može izračunati njegov horoskop.11. Jer je njegov ideal bio da u kap gramatike koncentrira filozofski oblak.12. Jer se neprestano pitao što učiniti kad imaš samo jedan talent i taj se talent počinje gasiti. Nije li najbolje nestati zajedno s njim?13. Jer ga tada kad je doznao da ima rak prostate nije toliko slomila sama dijagnoza, koliko jamstvo liječnika da poznaje djelotvornu terapiju.14. Jer je tvrdio: ”Moja su razmišljanja kao napisi na oknima, gdje na engleskim željezničkim stanicama prodaju vozne karte: ‘Is your journey really necessary? Da li je vaše putovanje zaista nužno? Ko to pročita, najvjerojatnije bi morao reći: ‘On second thoughts, no’, Ako dobro promislim, nije”.15. Jer nikada nije nosio kravatu.16. Jer je atomsku bombu smatrao gorkim, ali spasonosnim lijekom.17. Jer mu se, kao i Schopenhaueru, činilo zločinom roditi djecu. Jednoj je djevojci, koja je u njega bila zaljubljena, objašnjavao da to ne znači ništa drugo nego baciti još jedno biće u ovaj nesretni svijet. Isto tako je smatrao da ljudi u svakom slučaju predugo žive.18. Budući da je dobro bio svjestan svojih grijeha i nije se baš nimalo nadao da će se za njih moći otkupiti, Boga nije mogao predstavljati drukčije nego nemilosrdnog suca.19. Jer mu se svaki oblik filozofske argumentacije činio vulgarnim, Russellu je povjerio da cvijeće ne želi uprljati blatnjavim rukama.20. Jer se pitao: ”Kuda ide sadašnjost kad postane prošlost i gdje je prošlost?” U tome je, tvrdio je, jedan od glavnih izvora filozofskih teškoća.21. Jer postoje čudni afiniteti između Wittgensteina i Theloniousa Monka. Obojicu nije moguće imitirati, previše su komplicirani i osobni. Oba su bili muzičari tišine.22. Jer mu je Ingerborg Bachmann posvetila svoj doktorat.23. Jer je Isabelle Huppert u filmu Wernera Schroetera Malina predavala o Wittgensteinu.24. Jer se film Michaela Hanekea 71 fragment kronologije slučaja inspirira Wittgensteinom, kao što je film Dereka Jarmana Wittgenstein inspirirala filozofova biografija.25. Jer je u Freudu vidio jednog od najvećih estetskih demijurga modernosti, koji ne samo što je promijenio naš pogled, nego i stvorio novo oko.26. Jer je tvrdio da u filozofiji dobiva utakmicu onaj ko je u stanju trčati najsporije ili ko posljednji stiže na cilj. “Filozofi bi se međusobno morali pozdravljati sa ‘nemoj žuriti’”.27. Jer je na pitanje zašto je postao filozof odgovarao da nije bio dobar ni za što drugo i da uostalom s filozofijom šteti samo samome sebi.28. Jer je imao dubok osjećaj da je na svijetu suvišan, ujedno se stideći što nema hrabrosti da se ubije.29. Jer je pripadao istoj porodici kao i američka glumica Louise Brook, isto tako šopenhauerovka, koja je prolaznike ispitivala za put do pakla i koja je spalila svoje ispovijesti iz straha da se njima ne bi obmanula.30. Jer je radije volio lošu savjest od dobre i jer je s Gottfriedom Kellerom govorio: ”Nikada ne zaboravi da tada kada sve dobro ide, nije nužno da tako i ostane”.31. Jer je na jednom predavanju Karlu Popperu prijetio žaračem.32. Jer bez njega ne bismo upoznali majstorsko djelo Thomasa Bernharda Wittgensteinov nećak.33. Jer mu se činilo besmislenim čitati filozofske članke u znamenitoj reviji Mind, dok u Streetovim i Smithovim kriminalnim romanima ima mnogo više supstancije.34. Jer je jedna od njegovih najdražih izjava bila: “Leave the bloody thing alone” (“Ostavi stvar na miru”) koju je izricao sa svečanim izrazom i značila mu je to da su stvari posve u redu takve kakve jesu i da ne treba pokušavati ništa mijenjati.35. Jer je nakon završetka svojih predavanja uvijek odlazio u najbliže kino gledati western ili muzičku komediju. Uvijek je sjedao u prvom redu.36. Jer je bio svjestan da je rad u filozofiji rad na samome sebi. Uvijek pišemo na onoj ravni na kojoj se nalazimo.37. Jer je mrzio podučavanje filozofije na univerzitetu i o njemu je tvrdio da može biti pošten rad samo po istinskom čudu.38. Jer je savjetovao: “Ne igraj se dubinama drugoga”.39. Jer je tvrdio: ”Ne stidi se kazati glupost. Paziti moraš samo na vlastitu apsurdnost”.40. Jer je bio majstor u umjetnosti odupiranja diskurzivnim lukavstvima. Ako je Diogen odbacivao filozofski jezik kao klaun, Wittgenstein je upalio lomaču naših filozofskih taština.41. Jer je mrzio filozofsku vulgarizaciju koja zavodi ljude da misle kako razumiju nešto što ne mogu razumjeti.42. Jer je u pedesetim godinama još uvijek bio u stanju živjeti strašno komplicirane ljubavne priče s mladim muškarcima.43. Jer je smatrao da je mnogo teže i ujedno mnogo poštenije razmišljati ili pokušati razmisliti o svojem životu nego rješavati logičke probleme. Čemu bi bio logičar ako nisam čovjek, pitao se.44. Jer je bio promašeni monah, što nije promaklo njegovu najboljem biografu sa znakovitim imenom Monk (Monah).45. Jer je izazvao ljutnju Gillesa Deleuzea, koji je Wittgensteina optužio da je htio uništiti filozofiju.46. Jer se tokom Prvog svjetskog rata kao dobrovoljac prijavljivao za najopasnije zadatke. Tvrdio je da se strah rađa iz pogrešne predstave o egzistenciji. U rovovima je čitao Schopenhauera, Tolstoja i Nietzschea.47. Jer je tvrdio da se filozofski problemi mogu razriješiti samo tako da mislimo na gluplje stvari nego filozofi.48. Jer je tada kada ga je Bečki krug, tvrđava najradikalnijeg pozitivizma, pozvao na predavanje, radije čitao mističku poeziju Rabindranatha Tagorea.49. Jer je tvrdio da je želja za čašću i slavom smrt za misao.50. Jer je Russellu, koji ga je htio odvratiti od toga da dvije godine živi sam u Norveškoj, rekao da prostituira svoj duh razgovarajući s inteligentnim ljudima. ”Rekao sam mu da je ondje mračno”, priča Russell, ”a on mi je odvratio da ne voli svjetlo. Tada sam mu rekao da je lud, a on je odgovorio: ‘Sačuvaj me Bože mentalnog zdravlja”’.Sav je Wittgenstein u tome. Roland Jaccard, 50 raisons d’aimer Wittgenstein, Magazine littéraire, mars 1997, n 352, p. 18-19. (prevod Mario Kopić)

Sjajno. :)

[Dr Arslanagić]

gomila sjajnih fotki i raznih stvari iz perioda SSSR-a www.realussr.com

[Otto Katz]

Nešto za Arbeitmanna. Nogometna liga u terezinskom getu. Uz malo dobre volje se valjda može razumjeti o čemu se piše.

Edited May 25, 2012 by king louie

[kim_philby]

ovaj topik ponovo super. narocito mi je drago da je dzoli postovao posle milion godina (ili je meni promaklo )

[Dr Arslanagić]

Nešto za Arbeitmanna. Nogometna liga u terezinskom getu. Uz malo dobre volje se valjda može razumjeti o čemu se piše.

hvala pročitao, i dosta sam razumeo...izlazi sledeće godine u januaru zbornik o fudbalu u Evropi u peridu II svetskog rata, biće radova i o fudbalu u Protektoratu... čim dobijem primerak, skeniram i šaljem ti (na njemačkom će biti)

[Prospero]

Zanimljiv osvrt na tretman homoseksualizma u bibliji:

The Real Reason the Bible Bans Homosexuality By Eric BerkowitzWith the exception of requiring husbands to be faithful to their wives -- at least in theory -- the Hebrews treated adultery much as their neighbors did. They struck out on their own, however, in designating a new sexual “abomination” where there had been no precedent: The Bible made anal sex between men a crime of the worst order, for which death by stoning became the only option. “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable,” commands Leviticus. “Their blood will be on their own heads.” Men had been “lying together” since the beginning of civilization, of course. This was the first time they risked their lives by doing so.The Code of Hammurabi, which ordered society in most of the Tigris-Euphrates Valley for more than a thousand years, has nothing to say about homosexuality. The laws of Eshunna and Egypt are also silent on the subject. The Hittites forbade father-son relations, but that was part of a general rule against incest. The Assyrians thought it shameful for a man to repeatedly offer himself to other men, and also prohibited men from raping males of the same social class, but all other male-male sexual relations were ignored. The Hebrews, by contrast, made no distinctions and left no exceptions. Sexual intercourse between men was out, regardless of who was doing it and how it was done. The Jewish God hated it so much he wrecked the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to prove it.But before that story (and here’s the punchline: It’s not true), it is worth looking briefly at why the Hebrews would have adopted such a position. As we saw earlier, the ancient Jews were consumed with a sense of physical vulnerability, which they translated into spiritual terms. By drawing rigid sexual boundaries, the Jews were trying to bulk up the body politic. Men having sex with men blurred the lines by putting males in the “receptive” role of females in sex acts that, like bestiality, produced no children. Sexual pleasure was never forbidden among the Hebrews so long as it occurred while husbands and wives were producing more Hebrews. When they sought erotic pleasure for its own sake, or when they had sex that resulted in illegitimate children (as in cases of adultery or incest), the nation of Israel as a whole was weakened. God threatened to destroy the Jews: If they enfeebled themselves from within, they would be destroyed from without.In this context, biblical antihomosexual laws were also instruments of foreign policy. Male-male sex was forbidden (the scriptures ignore lesbian relations) precisely because the Jews’ neighbors permitted it. Just as sex with animals was common in the region, so was a benign attitude toward same-gender sex. As it was the mission of the Jews, based on the commandment of their God, to “not do as they do” in other, non-Jewish societies, homosexual sex was just one of a litany of “filthy foreign” practices the Jews defined themselves by rejecting. If the Hebrews’ enemies permitted homosexuality, it was inevitable that Jewish law would forbid it.The Book of Leviticus was supposed to come to Moses directly from the mouth of God, so its threats of destruction for homosexual sex were taken, so to speak, as gospel. But a simple law is rarely enough in itself to change people’s behavior. The point needed to be driven home with a gruesome example of God making good on his threat. Oddly, the Bible provides no such illustrations. In a book crammed with anecdotes, allegories, and repetitions, the subject of homosexuality is addressed just twice, and in the comparatively dry language cited above. To fill the gap, some later scholars decided to recast the old Genesis story about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The effort was forced, to say the least -- there is no evidence that either of those cities was a hotbed of homosexual sex -- but it was very successful in the end. The tale of these two accursed cities became history’s single most influential myth to transmit antihomosexual prejudice.Abraham’s nephew Lot was a resident of Sodom, a locale known, along with Gomorrah, as one of the evil “Cities of the Plain.” News of the cities’ wickedness reached God, who sent two angels in the guise of foreign travelers to investigate. Lot offered them lodging for the night, but their presence in his house agitated the townspeople. Before the angels retired for the night, a mob of men gathered outside Lot’s house. They demanded to see the travelers “that we may know them.” Lot refused, which enraged the mob even more. The key to this part of the story is the meaning of the word “know” (ve’nida’ah in the original Hebrew text). Did the word mean simply “to become acquainted with,” as many scholars argue? Or did it directly imply sex? Were the townspeople demanding only to look the visitors over, or did they want to rape them? It is impossible to say, especially given Lot’s response: “I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.” The crowd was not interested in deflowering Lot’s daughters; they wanted to “know” his guests. As they surged forward to break down Lot’s door, the angels struck them all with blindness. The next morning, Lot fled with his family, and God rained down fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah, destroying these cities forever.There is general agreement today that the Sodom mob’s crime was to ignore the custom of providing hospitality to strangers. By housing and protecting the two angels, Lot was doing what any decent Bronze Age Near Eastern host would do. The mob’s unruly demands to “know” the disguised angels were worse than rude, even if they had no intention of “knowing” the strangers carnally. But truth has never gotten in the way of a good story, and it did not take people long to turn this passage into a cautionary tale against homosexuality. The Jews themselves seem to have been the first to do so when, in the first century AD, they were horrified at all the homosexual sex going on among the Greeks and Romans. The reinterpreted story was soon swallowed whole by the Christian church, and thereafter became the basis of history’s most virulent antihomosexual laws. As early as the sixth century ad, the (Christian) Byzantine emperor Justinian pointed to Sodom and Gomorrah as the reason for his persecution of homosexuals. “Because of such offenses,” went one of Justinian’s laws, “famine, earthquakes, and pestilence occur.”Eric Berkowitz is a writer, lawyer and journalist. He has a degree in print journalism from University of Southern California and has published in The Los Angeles Times and The Los Angeles Weekly, and for the Associated Press. He was an editor of the West Coast's premier daily legal publication, The Los Angeles Daily Journal. He lives in San Francisco.

Edited June 18, 2012 by buffalo bill

[Prospero]

The Central Intelligence Agency's 9/11 File

Washington, D.C., June 19, 2012 – The National Security Archive today is posting over 100 recently released CIA documents relating to September 11, Osama bin Laden, and U.S. counterterrorism operations. The newly-declassified records, which the Archive obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, are referred to in footnotes to the 9/11 Commission Report and present an unprecedented public resource for information about September 11.The collection includes rarely released CIA emails, raw intelligence cables, analytical summaries, high-level briefing materials, and comprehensive counterterrorism reports that are usually withheld from the public because of their sensitivity. Today's posting covers a variety of topics of major public interest, including background to al-Qaeda's planning for the attacks; the origins of the Predator program now in heavy use over Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran; al-Qaeda's relationship with Pakistan; CIA attempts to warn about the impending threat; and the impact of budget constraints on the U.S. government's hunt for bin Laden.Today's posting is the result of a series of FOIA requests by National Security Archive staff based on a painstaking review of references in the 9/11 Commission Report.

[Dr Arslanagić]

(obratiti pažnju na potpisnike)

[Otto Katz]

(obratiti pažnju na potpisnike)

Vuko&Radule, šef otseka i presjednik.

[Dr Arslanagić]

umro sam u Arhivu, gledali su me ko budalu

[hazard]

Sta je ministarstvo fizickog vaspitanja naroda i cemu to sluzi to neko ministarstvo sporta i omladine?

[Dr Arslanagić]

Da, između ostalog. Oformljeno je 1931. sa ciljem da kontroliše sve sportske organizacije i klubove u državi (koji su bili potencijalno leglo antidržavnih delatnosti), da implementira Zakon o obaveznom telesnom obrazovanju, da širi ideologiju integralnog jugoslovenstva preko Sokola, skauta, vatrogasaca i sličnih i da koordinira delatnosi sa Ministarstvom vojske, glede održavanja fizičke i moralne spremnosti.