The Visible and the Invisible (pdf)

synthetic zerø

The Visible and the Invisible, by Maurice Merleau-Ponty

 The Visible and the Invisible (1964) contains the unfinished manuscript and working notes of the book Merleau-Ponty was writing when he died. The text is devoted to a critical examination of Kantian, Husserlian, Bergsonian, and Sartrean method, followed by the extraordinary “The Intertwining–The Chiasm,” that reveals the central pattern of Merleau-Ponty’s own thought. The working notes for the book provide the reader with a truly exciting insight into the mind of the philosopher at work as he refines and develops new pivotal concepts.

 read the entire book: HERE

[m]: Ontology has been dominated since Descartes by the subject-object dichotomy (res cogitans and res extensa) and despite many valiant attempts has been completely incapable of twisting free of this schema. This gives rise to a whole host of philosophical and infrastructural problems. Here M-P generates significant insights and…

View original post 1,570 more words

The Eadwine Psalter: A 12th-Century Illuminated Manuscript from Canterbury

On Art and Aesthetics

Eadwine at his desk, Wikipedia [Public Domain] I haven’t posted on one of my favourite art forms—the medieval illuminated manuscript—for quite a while, so here’s one: the Eadwine Psalter, named after the scribe and monk Eadwine of Canterbury Cathedral. This Psalter, which was put together in the middle of the 12th century, contains the Book of Psalms in three languages—Latin, Old English and Anglo-Norman.

It is supposed to be a copy of the ninth-century Utrecht Psalter, which is a masterpiece of Carolingian art (that is, art produced roughly between 780 and 900 AD, during the reign of King Charlemagne and his immediate successors).

The Eadwine Psalter: Text, Image, and Monastic Culture in Twelfth-century edited by Margaret T. Gibson, T. A. Heslop, Richard William Pfaff (1992, Penn State Press)

Much of the Eadwine Psalter is today kept at Trinity College, Cambridge. Other pages from the manuscript—containing scenes from Old and New…

View original post 213 more words

Light a Candle in Memory of those Starved for Being Ukrainian

Saturday, November the 25th, 2017, a candle will be lit and placed in the window of our households in memory of those who died from Stalin’s politically orchestrated starvation of Ukrainian farmers in 1932 and 1933. This terror famine, a death by starvation, was an undeniable act of genocide against the Ukrainian people. The high-end estimate of the number of people who died is 10 million.  This number has taken on a symbolic value in the collective consciousness of a people which has only begun to see this genocide come to light.

This act of genocide is denied in the mainstream narrative.  Although growing archival evidence indicates that the Holodomor was an act of genocide, there are circles of political influence which deliberately deny that the famine was a political act and claim that it was the result of drought and poor harvest. In a recent conversation, a Holodomor survivor told me that in 1932 and 1933 she remembers the grain harvest being a bumper crop which was confiscated by the Soviet authorities.

This begs the question: “who writes the history—who owns the narrative?” Michel Foucault in “Power/Knowledge” (1980) stated the following: “Truth is to be understood as a system of ordered procedures for the production, regulation, distribution, circulation, and operation of statements. ‘Truth’ is linked in a circular relation with systems of power which produce and sustains it, and to effects of power which induces and which extend it” (p. 133).  The denial of the Holodomor Genocide is the result of a dominant political narrative which needs to suppress the truth. The heroic Soviet narrative built solely upon the defeat of Nazi Germany masks a greater historical truth, i.e. the deaths of millions upon millions of Ukrainians, Poles, Baltic peoples, and numerous other national groups.

When you light a candle and place it in your window, be mindful of Norman Naimark’s words in Stalin’s Genocides (2012): “The bottom line is that Stalin, Molotov, Kaganovich and their ilk were convinced that the Ukrainian peasants as a group were ‘enemies of the people’ who deserved to die. That was enough for the Soviet leadership; that should be enough to conclude that the Ukrainian famine was genocide” (pp. 78-79).

Rev. Myron Panchuk Ph.D.


The Future of Artificial Intelligence: How It Will Impact Our lives!

TheCollegeFever - Helping Students Throughout College

Do you remember the machines in ‘MATRIX’ that enslaved humans or how ‘Chitti’ in the Rajnikant starrer ‘ROBOT’ fell in love with Aishwarya Rai’s character and took the city by storm? Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been a fascinating concept of science fiction for decades and now it has become a living reality! With AI evolving at a breakneck speed, the dubiety arises as to whether humans will control machines or be controlled by them. Although human brain is what has created this intelligence, it won’t take more than 5- 10 years to see a sea change in the existing scenario. It is predicted that AI bots will power 85% of customer service interactions by 2020 and will drive up to $33 trillion of annual economic growth.

Let’s take a step back and understand a little more about AI before delving into the future!

What is Artificial Intelligence?

48-John-McCarthy-AP Father Of AI – John McCarthy

View original post 954 more words

The Ukrainian Holodomor: A Trauma Beyond Trauma (Part I)


A Trauma beyond Trauma: The Great Famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine

The reign of Joseph Stalin as head of the Politburo of the Communist Party during the 1930s, and then as Premier of the Soviet Union in the 1940s and 1950s, is associated with massive arrests and deportations, the oppression of all forms of religious expression, the destruction of the intelligentsia, and the brutally implemented collectivization of the farming system in Ukraine which resulted in the starvation of a minimum of 5 million people.  In his recently published book, Norman M. Naimark (2010) argues that Stalin should be considered a genocidaire and notes that when this dictator listened to reports of the countless numbers of deaths which were the result of his purges he did not express remorse. Between the late 1920s and his death in 1953, it is said that he was personally responsible for more than a million…

View original post 401 more words