"Silencio Stampa"
last five or six quite the same "regular" sling ink all possible fiction. Initially, clear kumquat, came out very clumsy, but, like, with time, more or less "signed". Of course, Sia "literary production, did not differ by some great artistic merit and shamelessly exploiting the different stamps, but I was wondering the same way "to express themselves." However, today the interest was gone and so's time with all of this to end.
I mean, decided to completely do away with the fiction and anything else I will not write. None of this "diary", or anywhere at all.
I do not want to waste spend time on it, which no longer represents the interest and gives no joy ...
"Modest kinoblog, in turn, for a while yet exactly profunktsioniruet (and just pay for hosting these days), as already over something and leave unfinished work - is to show disrespect to those already spent time. But perhaps, too, somewhere in the summer edak "abandoned" this "kinoblog" finally. Since, in this respect, enthusiasm fairly "frayed."
This "Haste", perhaps, makes an impression on the part of some "mental anguish", but, in fact, it's hardly true, since I have enough As calm and just "tired."
PS to you was "sorry" delete this "dead" log out "tapes", I'll take it on their consciences, by removing all of you first. I hope for reciprocity.
PPS I wish you luck in life. And "goodbye" ..
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Charles Worthington Shampoo
literal truth and falsehood metaforizm
sort coarser kind of "makeweight" to the upbeat somehow previously subject "ambiguity" , after some indirect reflection, I would like to specify shustrenko and other smaller "particular". Though not so much referring to the most "ambiguity" as reflect on what lies behind its "constituent parts" of what is behind the "literal" and "metaphorical meaning ".
If we express the basic idea briefly, then I believe that the" truth "often appears before us in a literal form, but" false "loves" to divert attention "and dress up in colorful robes metaphors.
Yes," literalism "is not always true, in terms of that, because of overly formal transfer of data, mistakenly conveys the meaning of some of the affected items. But "metaforizm, strictly speaking, never is" true. " For "true metaphor - it is nothing, as soon as only a "colorable imitation", where the degree of the most "successful" determines how "correct" some sort of "metaphor" was able to "simulate" something "literally".
I mean, even the most "faithful" metaphor - do not always have the "truth" in the best case - it is only a "plausible."
And now let's ask ourselves, which primarily seeks to achieve "a lie"? Just the same "credibility"!
Again, the metaphor - it's a "spray point". More precisely, "the game with meaning of "counting oneself" extra essence. "When a" false sense "of trying to contrive and present themselves as" true. "Of course, the" true " not going away, but due to "excess fact" is "a semantic spraying.
Is it any wonder, then, that inveterate liars often used as a convenient "tool" romping meaningful metaphors and allegories, in order to "simulate" something "credible"?
Therefore, I do not know about you, but personally I always had a somewhat alarming when one begins to wriggle, dodge, braiding Parseltongue lace in the spirit that "not necessary to understand everything so literally ".
Where ends with" literal "begin" with a sense of merrymaking. "And where there is a" game "out there" no truth ".
sort coarser kind of "makeweight" to the upbeat somehow previously subject "ambiguity" , after some indirect reflection, I would like to specify shustrenko and other smaller "particular". Though not so much referring to the most "ambiguity" as reflect on what lies behind its "constituent parts" of what is behind the "literal" and "metaphorical meaning ".
If we express the basic idea briefly, then I believe that the" truth "often appears before us in a literal form, but" false "loves" to divert attention "and dress up in colorful robes metaphors.
Yes," literalism "is not always true, in terms of that, because of overly formal transfer of data, mistakenly conveys the meaning of some of the affected items. But "metaforizm, strictly speaking, never is" true. " For "true metaphor - it is nothing, as soon as only a "colorable imitation", where the degree of the most "successful" determines how "correct" some sort of "metaphor" was able to "simulate" something "literally".
I mean, even the most "faithful" metaphor - do not always have the "truth" in the best case - it is only a "plausible."
And now let's ask ourselves, which primarily seeks to achieve "a lie"? Just the same "credibility"!
Again, the metaphor - it's a "spray point". More precisely, "the game with meaning of "counting oneself" extra essence. "When a" false sense "of trying to contrive and present themselves as" true. "Of course, the" true " not going away, but due to "excess fact" is "a semantic spraying.
Is it any wonder, then, that inveterate liars often used as a convenient "tool" romping meaningful metaphors and allegories, in order to "simulate" something "credible"?
Therefore, I do not know about you, but personally I always had a somewhat alarming when one begins to wriggle, dodge, braiding Parseltongue lace in the spirit that "not necessary to understand everything so literally ".
Where ends with" literal "begin" with a sense of merrymaking. "And where there is a" game "out there" no truth ".
Do Durmal Anchors Hurt
van Gogh and Gauguin
Sensation! It turns "Vincent van Gogh" his ear cut off druzhban "Paul Gauguin" .
Although FIGS knows what it's there actually was. Perhaps Hans Kaufmann and Rita Vildegans simply wanted to earn a little money and / or fame sucked on the finger "sensation" .
That is, if judged reasonably, another book about the famous artist, listing all the known facts, is unlikely to be enjoyed in high demand (for this "theme" is already extremely "Hackneyed", only one movie about it from a few dozen), but the book is written in the spirit of "everything you said before - not true, but, in fact, it was so, I believe, may well become "commercially successful".
In general, wildly sorry if destroy such a beautiful legend ... Remember, it is that van Gogh, allegedly cut off his left ear (which is also a "myth", in fact, it is not "ear" and "ear lobe") in a fit of madness and alcoholism, and then, wrapped in a newspaper, gave the deposit of the prostitute Rachel, saying "take care of it."
me, incidentally, the father of a child, too earlobe chop off with scissors when tonsured. True, do not remember even what it is, left or right, and if you look in general has quietly ...
Sensation! It turns "Vincent van Gogh" his ear cut off druzhban "Paul Gauguin" .
Although FIGS knows what it's there actually was. Perhaps Hans Kaufmann and Rita Vildegans simply wanted to earn a little money and / or fame sucked on the finger "sensation" .
That is, if judged reasonably, another book about the famous artist, listing all the known facts, is unlikely to be enjoyed in high demand (for this "theme" is already extremely "Hackneyed", only one movie about it from a few dozen), but the book is written in the spirit of "everything you said before - not true, but, in fact, it was so, I believe, may well become "commercially successful".
In general, wildly sorry if destroy such a beautiful legend ... Remember, it is that van Gogh, allegedly cut off his left ear (which is also a "myth", in fact, it is not "ear" and "ear lobe") in a fit of madness and alcoholism, and then, wrapped in a newspaper, gave the deposit of the prostitute Rachel, saying "take care of it."
me, incidentally, the father of a child, too earlobe chop off with scissors when tonsured. True, do not remember even what it is, left or right, and if you look in general has quietly ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)