Clearsticky Fluid Coming Out Of Penis

Why can not we think of life as if it were playing chess

My father taught me to play chess when I was a child. At first, of course, always lost. Then, slowly, I began to improve until the fateful game where I could beat him.
During the period when I was improved significantly (that summer, I remember, I read Dostoevsky's The Idiot) at a certain point I realized something. If I could make a "game plan", a strategy to get the win or just to earn a piece, often happened that the moves made to implement that strategy, attacking moves, were unknown to me too defensive moves who went to parry his attack plans against me. Always playing with in mind a "plan" (which was constantly reviewed, updated, rearrangement) to prevent possible dangers even ignoring them.
This confirms what I read in the preliminary indications of an ancient manual of chess (which I always had my father put in his hand): the author recommends "Never move without a purpose!" (Followed soon after moved casual remark that almost certainly weaken their position and make up lost time that the opponent can take advantage). This rule was immediately fascinated me, and I started to think if it were a rule that could also apply to life in general. At that period, as a boy, I was obsessed with the problem of finding general rules to follow to live in a better way.
The rule of life by pursuing a project or simply placing a rule of the goals is certainly worthy of attention for anyone in search of "formulas" for a good life. Wanting to follow the analogy with chess, we could say that if we pursue the project, if we set ourselves targets and act accordingly, our actions will lead to development of our being that may be helpful to respond to unforeseen situations.
Many years after the first experiences I mentioned at the beginning chess, studying philosophy is unbeatable in action theories (GH von Wright, Habermas, Bubner ...) I got interested in the matter. Aristotle defines an action as behavior aimed at achieving a certain goal. According to von Wright means to act intentionally causing a change in the world.
have an intention, a goal, seems to be part of the very concept of action, and action can be evaluated for their effectiveness with which it can achieve its purpose, or in respect of the rationality of the purpose for more (opens here all the discourse on practical rationality and ethics ...). An action is rational if effectively achieves its purpose. One goal is rational if it is consistent with the general aims, that is, if part of a coherent plan for improvement of their conditions (and, better yet, the conditions of all that surrounds us ...).
But let us ask ourselves: how far can always be useful act in a rational way? You can apply the general rule of chess, "Never move without a purpose!" their lives, turning it into "an action without ever end!"?
Sometimes there is no clear purpose for which we are doing something, but it's better that way. In certain contexts let "instincts" or "intuition" may be better to be guided by reason. What are these contexts?
Think about what would happen if making love to know exactly pretendessimo because we do one thing rather than another.
Another context in which the act rationally may be blocking or counterproductive is that of a relaxed and intimate conversation between friends or between partners, where beauty is just the "letting oneself be" mental associations, even having the ability to follow those the other (as do the fun in lovemaking is not only follow their own desires but also be able to hear and follow those of the partner). Something similar occurs in the communication between patient and therapist in a psychoanalytically oriented psychotherapy or simply in the so-called "active listening" to all his relations help.
There is an entire field of situations in which having a specific objective can be counterproductive. I think of the artistic creation, but also to some extent in scientific research. In these contexts, as far as I know, is part often with vague ideas, insights, problems to solve that you do not know the solution. You work on this very vagueness, the idea of \u200b\u200bsomething that we want to communicate but that is not clear to ourselves, a riddle that haunts us, on a node that we can not resolve. The solution, the work accomplished, the road is built by, without first knowing exactly where will lead our work (he had already theorized Plato when he raised the issue of sophistry can not answer the question on the quest for knowledge: if I already know I do not need to know, I do not know if I do not know what to look for, and he responded with his theory of knowing how to remember ...).
A final (but no less important!) Context is that of heuristic dialogue thus established by Franca D'Agostini poisoned Truth, "you have a dialogue when A heuristic maintains pe B supports not-p, and A and B are interested in ascertaining the truth, then you compare, not so much as to have reason to know who is right and what is the best reason. " This kind of dialogue is essential when dealing with disputes over values, cultural differences that lead to confrontations between cultures. Issues are typical of non-violent conflict management theories (Gandhi, Capitini, Galtung, Patfoort and others) but also of the hermeneutic tradition (which has always Franca D'Agostini "distillate" some basic rules in his recent Truth poisoned )

Maybe then we could return to the issue of the "Never move without a purpose!" and say that if we want to apply it to life we \u200b\u200bhave to keep turning it into "No action without awareness of the meaning."
free and creative in its relations with others, in contexts where we exercise our freedom and creativity we can (must) give up the idea for a stated purpose, a clear action plan, and accept the idea of \u200b\u200baction without purpose, or for a purpose not clear, however, despite the clear sense of what we're doing, even just for distinguish it from other contexts in which instead of a specific purpose and rational action in relation to it are fundamental.
More generally, so it's important to always try to recognize the experiences that you are experiencing: being present in situations, consistent or inconsistent with the context, but still be in relationship with what surrounds us and with ourselves.

How To Get Different Jackets In Jibbin

not be possible, multivalent




Other (I refer to previous post) to support plurivocality of non-being: seems pretty obvious that objects / events and objects possible / impossible events no in different directions!

Maybe school should be formed, grown and educated, in addition to the sense of reality, the sense of possibility in the sense of that Borghini Musil cites the beginning of his What can : "Who owns it (. ..) Imagine: here could or should happen to this or that thing, and if it is stated that one thing is, he thinks, well, I could probably also be different. So the sense of possibility could also be defined as the ability to think of anything that might be, and not give more importance to what it is, that what is not .

I say this because, as explained in Borghini his Introduction, there is a strong link between reality and possibility: the identity of something is defined in relation to its ability, capacity, capability, "in everything, in everything that happens there are the seeds of this which can be and will be, of what can happen and will happen "and especially the sphere of values \u200b\u200b , strongly linked to that of emotions (see more Borghini, Nozick has made this relationship one of the linchpins of his book Life thought) can not be investigated, if not passed on and owned cultivated a sense of possibility, referring not only to the future but also to the present (what we can do) and in the past (what might have happened).

should be given due importance to what is not but it could be, if only to understand the importance of rules, norms, laws, that is what it takes to draw boundaries in the field of human possibilities.

As to the question of education and education and then to think that more weight should be given to strengthening of the imagination, meaning both the ability to roam in fantastic, is to explore the ' imaginative, but also to think about the possible (ability to conduct "thought experiments"). The distinction between

fantastic and imaginative still refer to Piana: elements of a doctrine and experience imagination rules.

Inititiation Drinking Ideas

value of non-being and value orientation. The concept of "reality" in Proust

In a post in October 2008, Ontology development as , argued: "what there is certainly more important than what there. If there's one thing does not matter, we must take this into account, can not influence, condition, etc. ".

the light of recent considerations for me, however, are forced to reconsider this position, or at least to raise a doubt about that.
If one of those things that we do not exist (or, in terms quiniani-varziani, "if we admit that there are) the objects / events" fictional "objects / objects and events in the past / future events, is very difficult to say that these things count for nothing. A literary character can be more influential and famous of a real person, not talking about what can influence and affect the past. As for the future, sometimes a prediction or a wait may be far more important to us than what we are living in the present.

But one of the hypotheses that I propose in this post is as follows: in addition to being a plurivocality (thesis here that I do not want to commit to support but I have suggested elsewhere that some claim) can support a non-plurivocality be.
The sense in which there is no Sherlock Holmes is different from the sense in which there is no (more) Napoleon! Even among objects / objects and events in the past / future events there is a difference: those of the past are no longer editable, and future (probably) yes!

remains still fine idea to me that one of the results of a future "ontology for all" is precisely to guide and to understand what is important and what is not. Something like that in contemporary thought, a kind of ontology (based on the concept of reality ) but at the same time is also a map of the values \u200b\u200bcan be found in the book by Robert Nozick (philosopher in the picture) Life thought. Of course, Plato is the prime example.

trace followed a path of citations in the text life thinking ( The Examined Life , 1989), so as to give an the basic concepts he uses and how he set up his speech.

"Sometimes a person feels himself to be more real. ... When you feel more real? ... Some might think that the question is confused. In all the moments in which the person exists, it exists, and therefore must be real. ... However, we can distinguish various degrees of reality. Consider first the literary characters. Some are more real than others. Think of Hamlet, Sherlock Holmes, Lear, Antigone, Don Quixote, Raskolnikov. None of them exist, yet they seem even more real than some people we know and do exist. ... Their reality is their liveliness and bite in the consistency with which moved or are afflicted with a particular purpose. ... The exhibit features that make it more concentrated centers of psychological organization. Such literary characters become symbols, paradigms, models, epitopes. They are extremely focused slices of reality.
... Works of art, paintings, poems or pieces of music often seem very real. ... maybe they just for their quality, retain and pay off most long-term attention we pay to them. In any case, we feel more balanced and sharper, more vividly perceive them. Other than the features beauty, like the intensity, power and depth, giving rise to this vividness of perception. ...
also outline mathematical objects and structures where very sharp property are intertwined in a thickly layered network of possibilities, relationships, combinatorial implications. Ask: 'The mathematical entities exist ?' - The question that philosophers do the math - misses the vivid sense of their reality-... According to tradition, Plato believed that the forms - which according to his theories were more real entities - they (like) numbers. The sphere of mathematics, with its clarity, draws our attention to this reality.
Just as some literary characters are more real, so are some people. Socrates, Buddha, Moses, Gandhi, Jesus .. ...
We, however, we are at times more real than others, more so when we are in a certain way rather than another. Often people say they feel more real when they are working with a lot of concentration and attention ... feel more real when you feel more creative. Some say during sexual arousal, others when they are bright and learn new things. We are more real when all our energies are focused, our focus is, when we are attentive, with full efficiency, and we use our (positive) powers. Focusing more intently we focus ourselves.
...
The sphere of reality, what has more a certain degree of reality, does not coincide with what exists. The literary characters although there may be real, existing things can have only the minimum degree of reality required to exist. E 'possible to place the lower limit to the level of reality of existence, anything that is less vivid and clear of all that exists can be called real. But the reality has several degrees, and the reality that particularly interests us here is above the lower limit of this minimum.
...
The "reality" category is the basic assessment or there is another even more fundamental need to understand and evaluate it? The most basic category, as I see it, is that of reality. "