text:
Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy Live! » Volume 6: Hinge Of Generations (1953)
http://www.erhfund.org/wp-content/uploads/Volume06HingeofGenerations1953/HingeofGenerations-1953-03.mp3
(Testing 1, 2, 3, 4; 1, 2, 3, 4. Testing. Philosophy 57, October 13th, 1953.)
... don't know how much more important the half is, compared to the whole. So I had half of you assembled downstairs, and we had a wonderful time. At least, I had. And so that's why the other people have to wait.
As to the report of today, I have only -- Mr. {Bain}, would you be good enough to read it?
... which has already occurred in America in the James family. I think it isn't easy for you to see what I'm driving at. I'm trying to put your eye on a s- -- turn your eye toward the spot which usually is not seen, a spot at which, from the tree of life, a new generation springs. We look -- if we look into the newspaper -- into the spirit of the times; and therefore the title of the newspaper is the "Times," the New York Times. And then we go onto another time and say, "It is another time." The issue today for the whole of the human race is: is there a community of the times into which every one time has to planted and rooted? As you remember, the upshot of the la- -- whole -- all I have tried to say in the last lecture has been that we discovered the strange rhythm of history, that independence comes before interdependence. And it is contrary to the evolutionary scheme, which thinks that we first keep what we have, and then add. Now, in real human history, we forget what we have, and we turn to it after we have become assured of our own individuality, and our own full life. Every generation is a secret society, gentlemen. Every generation is a secret society, with its own idiom, its own slang, its own habits, and it's quite impenetrable to any other generation. You wouldn't be understood by Em- -- Ralph Waldo Emerson if he entered this room today. Your mores, the way you make love, et cetera -- that's your private, temporary secret, as it -- the habits of his time would look funny to you. And you have to affirm this. Every generation must first live its own life. The thing becomes tragic, gentlemen, if this, your own life, is not only the starting point for the full life. The life of your own time is not the full life to be led. Most of you believe this, however. That would be the purely secular mind, because the secular mind says that the life in your generation is all you have to live. But the mys- -- mystery, of course, of a good conscience, and of a directed life, and of a successful life is to be succeeded into. You can only be loved by a posterity if you have something to be loved for. And what is it, what people are loved for? The sacrifice of their own will. People are loved who have been able to -- to go beyond their own temporary will. The -- Beau Brummell -- you know
who that was, Beau Brummell? Who knows who Beau Brummell was? Would you tell them, please?
(Well, {just very briefly}, he was a -- an actual, historical figure who was known for his good looks and his charming ways {and the} way he dressed, and so on. He became to symbolize -- or came to symbolize, that is, that {elderly} man which always pretends to be what Beau Brummell actually was. { } historical figure.)
How do we call this in America, this type?
({I'm not really certain}.)
Well, we have a play -- we have a play that represents the modern type of Beau Brummell very well. The Man Who Came to Dinner, don't you think? Man about town. That's what it amounts to, only more refined, as in England, it would be more refined. I mean, the dress is more perfect, and everything is more, even -- transparent. When you see the man, it's all in -- within 24 hours, so to speak, his excellency, and his distinction. Now such a man can be remembered as a caricature or as an oddity, but he cannot be succeeded into, or cannot be loved. He can be imitated.
Gentlemen, the question then before the house is: in our days how an independent generation, without loss of character and individuality can enter the interdependence of generations, the interaction of generations, and therefore succeed and be succeeded.
Let me today formulate this in two other ways. I ran into the report or reminiscences of an -- sculptor's wife, a Mrs. French, who has written a very charming book on her reminiscences, and she mentions Robertson James, the brother of William James, and Henry James the novelist, and the son of old Henry James, and she says that in her estimation, Robertson James, who never wrote a book, was by far the most brilliant of all the children of William -- of Henry James, Sr., which I think is very much im- -- of some importance to us, you see, in this connection, you see, of looking at this point where the tree of the James family splits into father and sons. Now we had already said that the unique character of the James family rests on the fact that Mr. James brings into his home the universal church, day and night, that he preaches the Gospel, that he is his own church and minister at home. And therefore, gentlemen, what I'm saying to you is not a solution of a carnal nature in your own family, or in my family, because ordinary men do not bring the whole church universal to their luncheon table, or their dinner or breakfast table. What I'm telling you is: the spirit of one time as connected with the spirit of another time. It is not the flesh of
one family generation, as the flesh in a -- and the flesh in another family generation. The unique character of the James family is in this: that Mr. James, Sr., when he spoke, was absolutely nothing but the mouthpiece, you see, of the pulpit, of the Church, of the sacraments, of the Gospel in his living room. You will admit, that we all, who have work to do outside the house, you see, cannot afford this luxury.
So please do not confuse the question of a purely physical descent in -- from one generation into the next -- from the eternal question: how the spirit in one generation can be transmitted into the, you see, the hearts and ears of another generation. You must, to- -- therefore, so to speak, in the James family see a unique constellation. Solutions in history gentlemen, which then can be followed and -- and redeemed, and respected, and quoted, as I tried to do this solution -- bring into your life as a real solution, have of course a kind of perfection and -- which makes them apt to be examples, but which also in this sense cannot be repeated. Your relation to teachers, to your parents, to ministers, to religion, to history books, to biographies, to people you come to know in life, you see, altogether may be able to match this -- what in this one case was allowed to happen between one father only and all his children, because here was one man who, in the middle of the 19th century, was still in the absolute intimacy of the tradition of the Church, as nobody today really has it, outside the Bible Belt, and on the other hand, he had already the heresy of saying that the Church had to come down to earth in every life, and wasn't dependent on a Sunday service, you see, or on a liturgy, or on any denominational tie-up.
So you see, what I'm trying now to warn you against is not to see why the James family has this special quality. A hundred years ago, every family in the world had still strict religious authority in one way or the other. There was prayer, you went to the services, and neither Jew nor Christian were emancipated. But the -- the -- the -- you had to belong to an organized religion. If you say today "organized religion," it is always second-best. It isn't -- filling everything. Even if you have Catholic tennis grounds, the tennis ground is -- wins out against the label as being a "Catholic" tennis ground or "Catholic" swimming pool. Nobody seriously believes that the water is more Catholic than the secular water in which you can swim. And this whole problem day of the Church is to run after all our secular activities and then to -- to make them into de- -- something denominational just doesn't work. I mean, because everybody feels that we live in a universal society, and a -- a greater universe. And no denomination can cover it totally. It's just impossible.
The -- the Anglicans, for example, have struggled very hard to keep their -- their tradition here as -- Episcopalians in this country. But when you read the constitution of the Episcopal Church -- who is an Episcopalian, anybody? Well, if
you read your constitution, the mainstay is this purely democratic constitution, which is an imitation of the American Constitution, the way they vote, you see, the -- how the bishops and the house of the -- of the lower clergy and the laity, because it's irresistible here that you do everything in the parliamentary way. Whereas in the -- in -- in England, you see, they never have, as you know, gotten rid of the authority of Parliament to rule them. You can't have a Book of Common Prayer changed in England to this day without Parliament, you see, allowing it. And so the Anglican Church to this day in England is very different indeed. Here it has just become a part of the democratic way of life in this country. So the faith in democracy is stronger than the -- in the ways, you see, the historical ways of the Church. Well, you find this in -- everywhere, I mean. You find it in Catholicism, and Protestantism. Don't believe for a minute that the -- the ways of this country haven't had the power to submerge, so to speak, everything that is purely divisive, and purely denominational.
Without going into this, I still say once more: the James family, at a moment which was the last moment in American history, in 1865, when -- and before the country went absolutely secular, as the basis of its education, the basis of its press, the basis of its politics, the basis of its scientific search, there is still this one man, Henry James, Sr. And he sent into the world this group of youngsters. And as I told you, this man Robertson, who never wrote a line, yet is highly representative of his children, they all had a silver tongue. They all were feared and beloved for their incredible eloquence.
What makes a man eloquent is therefore one of the questions we'll have to answer in the -- this story. Nobody can be eloquent by himself. Eloquence is a response. You can only be eloquent if you have -- we are allowed to respond to the stream of speech, of eloquence, of garrulity that is around you. Eloquence is response. Nobody is eloquent who is not in some reciprocity.
Now the family table of the Jameses therefore to this day -- you can, so to speak, realize it in their books, in their letters, in their collected letters -- outshines the eloquence of the pulpit and the sermons of the clergymen in Mr. Henry James, Sr.'s generation. So you have the strange thing, which is an historical -- great historical law, gentlemen, that the most heretical form of an institution can, at the decisive moment, outlast the more orthodox, because it already has, so to speak, made contact with the future -- by {laicalizing}, by translating all the liturgy, the sermons, the chorales, the hymns, the thoughts, the prayer, of the Psalms, of the Church into dinner talk, into breakfast talk, into the witty and cordial exchange, and the affectionate speech between parents and children. Mr. James represents heresy. He is a heretic with regard to official religion. No doubt about it. He wants to be one. He's a heretic. That is, he proclaims a way which in some way does away with the organized church. He denies the Church. That --
we can't go into this in greater detail, but perhaps at the end of the course, we may be able to read some of his texts. He says this in the paper, you remember the -- have you read my paper on this, at this time? Well, I'm quoting his -- his words on Jesus, when he speaks, you see, that it was an unspeakable sullying of Jesus, that the Church got hold of Him, you see, and deified Him, you remember? So he's a heretic -- no -- no -- we shouldn't mince any words and not try to save his soul in any orthodox way. But a heretic may, at a moment when the whole institution dies, bear fruit outside.
When the Roman Senate -- to give you another example -- when the Roman patricians had kept the law under cover for a long time, the {plebesians} rebelled, as they would have riot- -- they did riot, and they seceded to the sacred mountain. And Rome wouldn't have been Rome without making peace between the old patrician tradition and the new {plebesian} tradition. You have heard of the patricians in Rome, and the plebs. These two words, perhaps, may have struck you and that's very important, the way, again -- can an older group can be reconciled to the younger group, and the tradition go on fruitfully, you see, or must the next generation just break away -- the plebs, you see. And they w- -- have nothing to do with the patricians. Now it so happened that Cneius Flavius, a -- a man of rank, had taken pity and sympathy with the plebs before the riots started, and had taken the law out of the sanctuary of the patricians and had written it on publi- -- had published, so to speak, these laws, the texts of which had been kept as the sacred reserve of the peers, so to speak, of the realm. It would be as tho- -- though the House of Lords only knew the common law in England, you see, and the House of Commons had not been allowed to read the text, the old decisions, you see. And he broke this taboo, Cneius Flavius did, and so Roman law was allowed to go on in traditional ways, because his publication of the law, his acting as a heretic in the old order, you see, had come just about in time to make the {plebesians}, after they had read it, to say, "Well it isn't as bad as we feared it would be, but as long as it was kept a secret," you see. "Now we see, that we can very well continue this -- in this line, you see, because these laws make sense."
You will find everywhere, gentlemen, that timely reform, although considered heresy at its own time, can save the peace between one generation and the next. For example, there is one, beautiful monastery in Germany, the {Komburg}, near -- in {Wrtemberg}, one of the most beautiful Romanesque churches you can find there, where 30 years before the Reformation, the canons declared they would break the law of -- of celibacy and allowed each other to mar- -- get married. Now, that happened in 1483, when in 1517 the Reformation started, the people on the {Komburg} were -- remained unmolested by the new Protestants, because they said, "Well, they have gone halfway already voluntarily, and we won't interfere with their possessions. We won't destroy the pictures
and the statues in this monastery, because these canons have already admitted that marriage is a normal state." And so this monastery was allowed to continue 300 more years peacefully. And it's still standing undestroyed, and one of the very few places in Europe where neither the Reformation nor the French revolution have, so to speak, cut off the noses of the statues, which they have, as you know, in France, in the most devastating manner, during French revolution, because in France they had not reformed for even 300 more years. They haven't even to this day. So the mob went out and finding no heretical courage inside the Catholic Church did it wholesale and they broke away. And you have today this curse in France that they only have left and right, and they have not sons and fathers. They have not the two-generation problem, but they have just one world and the other world in constant opposition. That's why the Ameri- -- the French mind is just very logical and very witty, but so absolutely sterile.
Because the heretic -- if you see now what I mean -- in the case of -- Henry James, you see, can now represent to you a form of Church and Christianity, and Scripture and Biblical authority, you see, which you may not grant to the pope, or to the Presbyterians -- Church, or to the Episcopalian Church, you see, or to any organized religion, because you say, "My higher life cannot be dictated to by organized religion." But as an example of the good life, Mr. James has divested himself of any such authority, and he just asks you, "Don't you want that? Can you live without me?" so to speak, you see.
So the heretic at this moment represents the Church as a lovable institution, without authority. And that is the great aspect of this one side of the James family. The older generation, by having become heretical, cannot claim any authority. It can only be accepted by you because you love it, because you have to love it, because it makes itself lovable. Now to be lovable, you see, is not a question of authority, of right, of law, you see, and order, but is a question of your surrendering your heart to it, and not your brain. You see the difference?
So my appeal is then made to you in the same manner as Henry James did to his sons, because why am I entitled to say all these things? Because religion, Christianity, the faith, the Scriptures, prayer, the presence of God did not come to the children of Henry James in the form of any authority. They only came as the outpouring of the free spirit of his father -- their father. And that is -- something magnificent. The father dared -- the father risked his own -- whole existence on the basis of free love. And here the word "free love" is in order. Free love for married people is ridiculous, when it is opposed to -- to marriage, because any real love wants to lead to -- to marriage, or to -- eternal union. And however, to be loved for your relation to your maker -- that can only be done if you forfeit all claims to authority. The father did not claim that his sons had to believe because he believed. He did not claim that he -- he should join any church, because he
had no -- found no fault with Christianity, you see. But he let them completely free, but there was this testimonial, you see, his witnessing.
And so now you see that the -- the family really represents something very special. You read any text that comes out of this family, and you will find that these people were flooded, the children, with this constant flow of the eloquence from their father's mouth in the family. It's a family pulpit. It's a family's gospel, so to speak. The -- the Gospel preached in the family. That's unique. You may get Mrs. Beecher Stowe, or you may get a great minister doing this at home, but he still has his other pulpit. He still does his best for his congregation, you see, or with -- inside the church. Not here. This man had no other outlet. The occasions in which he could give a lecture or a speech outside the family were very few. And then he was a mainstay, where his own friends, you see, members -- assistant members, so to speak, of his family.
And now, also let me underline this. Such a family as the James family, of course, does not consist of the people born into this by right of blood ties. But it contains the friends just as much, and the correspondents. A family, as the James family has happened to be, is of course a spiritual organ, an organ of spiritual life. It is a spiritual institution. It is not an apartment story. It is not a story of two parents and two children squeezed into 45 square feet of room, with a kitchen and a refrigerator, what you call a "family apartment." That's all a total misunderstanding of modern architect. Any family today is -- is needed, because we need house parties. And we need house parties, because the Holy Spirit today cannot be hoped to exist at Cap- -- on Capitol Hill, or in John's -- St. John's Cathedral.
They are too big, gentlemen. If you have no longer commu- -- rural churches, and you have centralized schools -- no district schools -- and everything, if we have 3,000 schools in Dartmouth instead of 400 in normal times down to 1918, for the 170 years, what do you expect? Do you think you can have the Holy Spirit in any of the groupings of such size? It's impossible. You have mob rule.
So the family today is nothing but the normal bearer of the good tidings of the spiritual life. And you have to make it into this. You can't make your wife happy if you have no guests. And you can't have guests if you only regard them with television. There has to be something to be talked about. You have to make peace in your family. You have to give your guests something that strengthens them when they go out again. And you must give them cause to come to you to receive this fortification, in their distress, and in their doubts. And you are -- this television business is just one more attempt of the manufacturers of the spirit of the times to settle once for all that there shall be no Holy Spirit in which the
academics -- crowd, of course, heartily joins, because the academic spirit today in this country is a secular spirit, is the spirit that wants to destroy the communion with our forefathers and says, "They were superstitious. They were just dated. They were antiquated." And so they write books about the last Puritan.
In the -- in the -- I have to stress this, gentlemen, because I -- I didn't when I began talking about these things, because to me it is normal that you and I, when we meet, speak to each other, comfort each other, and therefore are meeting in one spirit, either of despondency or of courage, or what it is, but certainly what brings us together is not just our physical needs. But when I hear you talk, you really think of the family just as satisfying material needs: sex, and hunger, and prestige, and security.
Well, gentlemen, the James family knew nothing, because in this man's decision not to become a minister -- Henry James, Sr., you see -- there was involved this strange vow, probably never articulated, that he certainly wouldn't go back, behind the ministry in an organized church, but he would prove that the real spirit could be inherited better outside the organized church. So I give you Henry James as an example of a superminister of the spirit, who consecrated his home, not because he couldn't become a minister for believing less, but he couldn't become a minister for believing more than you have to believe in an organized ministry, when you only sermonize or say Mass mor- -- in the morning from 8 to 9. And he said, "But I have to witness to this totally, with my whole life." There is no distinction between weekday and Holy Day, and that you may sum up as his main heresy, that Mr. Henry James, Sr., said there is no such division between a sacred place called "the church," and a desecrated place called "the private home." Religion is neither private nor public. It is openly confessed.
And gentlemen, in this point, I want you to see -- we come now to a description in -- of the solution problem in the James situation, in the James creation. You are killed and murdered by your simply dividing private and public life. The best of you, you think, is private. And the -- that which you will stand for is called "public." But gentlemen, God hasn't created a private world and a public world. And he hasn't created private law and public law. That's all nonsense. He has created us openly, in His image. And whether you live in the family, or whether you live in the -- under government orders, or you live in the -- on the planet -- in the desert Sahara, you are -- lie open to Him, absolutely open. And He knows nothing of this division of private and public. And religion, of course, is killed in this country, because it is said to be man's private affair. Then there is no religion. As soon as religion is -- if you know ahead of time that religion is private, it has been abolished. Because if religion is one thing, it is the permeating force, you see, that -- under which public and private life has to be brought. And by saying that religion is private, you have denied that you have
any. Then it is just -- well, it's uninteresting. It is not only belittled, but is in fact abolished. Now Mr. James is so important. He is a heretic. He challenges the whole organized church from pope to moderator of a Baptist meeting, because he says, "Twenty-four hours a day I breathe, I try to breathe in the -- in the atmosphere of the Holy Spirit." It is this pervading force that makes him a unique fellow in your eyes, because you can think of a man who leaves the Church and still believes, but then you always imagine that he treats his { } as private utterances, to be kept private.
Now gentlemen, may I say then that Henry James has not, in 1865, taken the decisive step into the secular era, because he has not allowed his home to be degraded into a private affair. It wasn't his private home. And he has made his children into public agents of the spirit, by transmitting him this task of translating his gospel into the spirit of his -- their own time and this language and the eloquence of secular speech. To write a novel, to write a letter, to write a book, to make -- crack a wit for the children of Henry -- of -- the Henry James father, has always meant to be -- to speak openly, and not privately. That is, to speak with the whole man. And may the chips fall as they may, as we say today, when we are willing to take the consequences, you see, of what we say. When you speak openly, you forget whether this is a private room or a public room, and only such words of you will bear fruit. The power of the spiritual life depends just as the power of creation in -- of children on your willingness to take the consequences. That we mean by "open." It doesn't mean shameless, you see. It doesn't mean exhibitionist, it doesn't mean naked, but it means open so that you do not regulate the truth, and the consequences. You are willing to let it affect others as far as the spirit may move others. That is open, you see. Whereas "private" means I know that nobody will take it out of the walls of this room. And then you have scuttled it, and you are imprisoned -- have imprisoned the spirit into the walls of a -- padded walls of a telephone booth, where you don't want the sound to get beyond the padded walls.
This is the curse of your idea of privacy, gentlemen. It's the same as -- as birth control. The children are born only when the parents are willing to take the consequences. That doesn't mean that anybody is shameless enough to invite other people to look at their making love. They are just as discreet and private as the others. But when the walls are broken and the child is born, they are willing to take the consequences. That's the difference between private marriage and open marriage, you see. If you are openly married, the fruits of your intercourse are legitimate, you see. In your private love affair, there can -- may be -- must be no fruits, because it is only privately -- private as long as nobody knows that you have lived together as {husband and wife}. Can you see this?
Gentlemen, this is something quite far-reaching. I want you to understand
that the institution of the home of the James family in some ways is more important for you to understand that the relation -- than the relations of Church and state today, because you don't know what Church is and what state is, today, because you make the division of open and private. You are so sure that a man can take his own life privately, and are so sure that he can -- that he can control and check his offspring by birth control, that you do not see that the problem we are asked in the full life is: to know ourselves as the link in all life. When it is a link in all life, then anything we do, from shitting, to having sexual inter- -- a lov- -- a loving intercourse with a woman, to thinking, to speaking out, is a part of a process in which we do not sit at the switch, and we -- cannot control the effects. And that's why the Bible says two things: by their fruits, ye shall know them; and judge not, lest ye be judged. Because any one of us knows that many times he -- his utterances and his deeds should not have -- take affect. He's afraid, of course, you see, that he be judged, because once you know that you are living in the open, and there are no secrets, because there is only one life, one territory completely containing us and working through us, then we are all deficient in grade. Many of our acts, you see, we condemn -- would condemn ourselves, so we shall not judge anybody else, because we know that for one successful act, there are 99 unsuccessful and deficient acts in our own life.
Now you have to balance these two utterances. Judge not, lest ye be judged; and the other: that only by their fruits we shall know them. In order to see the problem of a man like Henry James, who is satisfied of handing over the best he is possessed by, to his children and to leave it with them to bear fruit, without saying, "You have to be members of my church," without saying, "You have to share my convictions," you see, without trying to convert them, you see, but only trying to divert them, so to speak. Trying to entertain them. Trying to enter into a conversation with them, and make the -- his side of the conversation so overpowerful that the echo, the response, the answer in some way must come up to this {strength}. It is the vigor of the father's appeal that is the only investment and the only certainty that he has that the echo must be equally important, and appealing, and fruitful. Can you see the difference between a transmission of content and a sowing openly into the ground and saying { } must die, the { } can be reborn. That's the ultimate in faith. Can you see this? It isn't the same word that he wanted to hear from his children repeated, but he wanted to have the vigor of his word, you see, repeated, re- -- reborn.
So, the faith, gentlemen, in the Henry James generation, is of such an ultimate, extreme character, that he doesn't want to have his word of faith come back to him, but a new word of the same degree of faith, isn't it? Now gentlemen, here you have something of a perpetual character, which the Christian Church has never lived before, neither have the Jews, neither have Mohammed and Islam, nor have the Chinese. It's an incredible appeal to the interaction of
generations, that the older man has said, "My inspiration is true, and I will believe in the truth and my inspiration, and I will feel rewarded if my sons -- sons say something quite different, but say it with the same enthusiasm and the same vigor." Will you kindly note this, gentlemen? That is something you have never read about and never heard, and it is still -- far in the future. The problem of Henry James, the heretic, was not to find affirmation of his tenets in the -- by the younger generation, but his -- his task was much more faithful, and much more inspired, and much more daring. He wanted to have the same vigor, the same devotion, the same lack of lackadaisical degeneracy which he represented, and he -- this was his reward and the echo: that he did give birth to Henry and -- and William James, who are the most eloquent English writers of their generation.
That isn't the whole story, but I'm only trying to develop it at this moment from his heretical situation, from his -- not his -- so much his point of view but his -- his point of action, because it wasn't his point of view. He became aware of what he had done only late in life. He made a decision not to become a minister. His negative decision was consciously done, you see, in his youth. Then as a man of independent means, he had the fabulous courage to concentrate on creating this family conversation. And it is, you see, with your damned idea of privacy, very difficult for me to give you the respect for this man's creation as though it was more important than the crea- -- creating {Socony} Vacuum, or the Empire State Building. In my mind, the lifelong action of Mr. Henry James, Sr., is much more important than the founding of any corporation in the United States, be it bathtubs, or soap, or what-not. You can give me Procter and -- Gangster, and who -- not, I mean. It doesn't make -- it doesn't make any difference. All these corporations also had to be founded, and people had to give faith and trust to them and -- for generations. This -- this -- they are producing our soap. All right. But Henry James invested in something quite new, incorporating faith, pure and simple. It's also incorporation, in the spirit of a family, and daring his children to forget every word that he has said -- had said, but not forgetting his spirit. Forgetting every word that he had said. That he had to do, because he was a heretic. You ca- -- no heretic, you see, can ask from anybody else to be orthodox, because if -- since he defied the Church and the Church fathers, here was this father of fleshly children who had defied the fathers of the Church. And therefore, he had to pay the penalty. Now the penalty is, however, much more complicated than you think it is, you see. The penalty was that he couldn't ask for allegiance and adherence to his faith, to his formulated, articulated faith. If I reject St. Augustine, and the pope, and Luther, you see, and everybody else, then of course I would be ridiculous if I said, "From now on, you all have to believe in me, Henry James," you see, because anybody -- can only ask for what he does himself, and therefore, after Christianity -- no heretic can found a church. A heretic cannot found the Church because he has himself desecrated the Church and cried it down and said, "It is -- there is no church for me, well, then there can be no
church for others."
But this isn't a simple solution, gentlemen. The reward of the loving heretic, of the faithful heretic, of the inspired heretic is that he may sow the seed in another man's heart to love as much as he, to be inspired as much as he, and to hope as much as he, and in this sense, you see the strange purification of faith in such a life, you see. Not what I say is what I have the right and the privilege to hand over to the next generation, you see, but the fact that I believe, and that I speak with full conviction, and that I put it in the open, and cast the bread on the water and let it reach, you see, a -- work and be effective as far as I can make it effective, you see, something very different from selling a commodity, you see, in a described -- -- fashion, you see, of a dogmatic statement. Can you see the distinction? It i- -- no? Then please ask the question. It is not right for you to sit there and --
(I can't formulate it, but -- I've been trying { }, I think. I can't formulate the question { }.)
But you do see that it is a problem?
(No. I don't see that there is a problem.)
Well, do you come -- if I may ask this question -- from any background where Church has played a part, or a denomination?
(No.)
It hasn't. Well, still you would understand that a chemist wants to teach you chemistry, you see. And he thinks certain things in chemistry are in accordance with the state of the science at this moment. And he wants you not to believe anything that is dated and antiquated. So wouldn't he be very anxious to make you reach the standards of chemistry, 1953, and would he not be down on you if you -- if you believed something that was thought to be true in 1889? Don't you think that would be true? That he would be very anxious to make you see that we had progressed and that in 1953, in chemistry, you had to think suchand-such things to be true? And you must not relapse into some prejudices which people still had in -- in the 19th century in chemistry? Would you agree to that?
(Yes, but {since have been proven false there}).
Well, I haven't. That's what I have assumed. Sure. But there have -- there have many things been proven false. So -- so you have no trouble understanding
this. You understand this ...
(Yes -- )
...that a chemist wants you to teach chemistry as of 1953. That's all. So you believe in the duty of a man to teach content, a certain content of tenets that must now be thought to be true, so that this chemist can go on and perhaps progress again and so that 30 years from now you may the leading chemist. But in order to become the leading chemist in 30 years, he would have -- first have to learn from this man what he should know at this moment. Is that right? Any trouble in -- in seeing this?
Now Henry James' situation is the opposite, the very opposite. He's not a chemist, but he wants to assure his children of the presence of a revelation, of a -- of a spirit that guides their steps in every one moment, and tells them to give up chemistry, for example, or to study chemistry. The decision of becoming a chemist, you see, must also underlie some sanction. That cannot be the chemist's sanction, because you may have to choose becoming -- between becoming a politician and a chemist, or perhaps emigrate and go -- become a Japanese. As long as these higher decisions, you see, are at stake, the chemist can't help you, because he only knows what can be known. When we make decisions in life, if you want to find out whom you have to marry, you see, there is no -- there is no science about this, because you cr- -- re-create the world at this moment. And here we enter this -- this sanctuary of which the letter of Willi- -- Henry James' father tries to speak to his son. He says if you believed in creation, you would know that you must be at that moment in the sequence of how to create. The first chemist could not be told by chemists what chemistry was. But he had to cry out, and say, "There shall be chemistry. And I'll prove it to you." And nobody believed him and they burned him at stake as a -- as a wizard, as a sorcerer. And he said, "Just the same, there will be another chemist. We'll -- we'll look this -- see this through." The first chemists actually were burned, I mean, as witches, because they -- you see, alchemy and -- and witchcraft were -- were contaminating each other, of course, and were thrown together in the 16th century.
Now gentlemen, there is then, where something is not known to exist, a -- quite a different jurisdiction, and that we call the "realm of creation." The realm of nature contains all the things you know already to exist. The realm of creation contains the things which you feel must be proven to exist -- like love, or sacrifice, or patriotism, or -- or beauty -- but which you cannot prove to anybody, except by your own deed. It's absolutely -- you can't look it up in an encyclopedia. You can't look it up in a textbook of chemistry. You don't believe this, of
course, because it is beyond your experience. You -- in any distressing decision of your life, you will however be exposed to justice. You always have to ask yourself, "Shall I take vengeance on an injustice done in the world, or shall I go beyond and create another -- a new standard of { }, which includes even the -- the doer of the evil?" you see. "So that I take him with me into the new order of things." "Love your enemy" is always a creative act, you see. It can never be proven, you see, by chemical rules, that it will work. He may bite your hand and he -- he may stab you in the foot.
We have a -- I have a dear friend on this campus whose brother was killed in the war in the Pacific, because the brother was a very -- a Christian gentleman, really, and -- and pardoned a Japanese, and had him come out of his -- of his hedgerow there, his -- how do you call it, this cave and -- no, what's the word? Trench wel- -- wie?
(Foxhole? A trench?)
Ja. Foxhole, and made him prisoner, and then the man murdered him, this Japanese, for this act of forgiveness. Now when you try to love your enemy, you're always exposed to this danger. Nobody can guarantee that thine enemy knows already that you are going to love him, you see, and before you know it, you may be murdered, as Jesus was betrayed by the people He -- He tried to redeem. That's the secret of the Redemption, that He had to go to the Cross, because He loved His enemies, the people who -- and His enemies were the very people who crucified Him. So He could only show his love by accepting the verdict and going through the ordeal, and -- so that their eyes may be opened after the event. And you are a Christian when you can say to yourself, "I would have crucified Him, too, but I mustn't," because then you are the -- His enemy who would become His friend.
This is very simple, but so simple that you have forgotten it, gentlemen, that to love thine enemy, any act of love is risk -- can always be betrayed. The viper can always wound you mortally in the process. It isn't true that "love thy enemy" is without risk. It isn't true that thy enemy wants to be loved by you. This is all sentimental sugar-bread which you receive in this country. To live thine enemy is the most dangerous sacrifice of your own life. It is not done by good will, but by great courage. And you can't do it always. It's only when the appointed hour has come that the world wouldn't, so to speak, be able to survive if at this moment not one man would love his enemy, you see. It's always a creative act which is added to the nature of things. You cannot ask all Americans to love the Russians. You cannot ask all the Russians to love the Americans. But I'm quite sure that it is very decisive that one American at this moment goes and loves one Russian. It's very important, but you can't promise him any emolu-
ments. You can't promise him a position in the state department after that. It's -- the -- the easiest prediction is that he'll be slandered and defamed in his own country, and that the Russians will throw him into jail and prison and that he'll die from famine or -- or -- or -- or an infectious disease. But that doesn't mean that he hasn't to create the future. Ten thousand have to -- try to create it, and one will be -- may succeed. That's how risky real life is, gentlemen. You hate to hear this, although you see in -- in -- when you deal with chemicals, and you deal with bacteria, and you deal with anything -- plant life, or animal life -- that there is always the seed of a thousand, and one of them grows. So it is as risky to live.
(Sir, can we have a break here?)
Of course. I want one very much. Open the window, too.
...but people only have peace if it has allowed age to come and be reconciled with this spirit and there is a strange utterance of William James in which this secular mind says he will not have rest before he hasn't made the voice of his father heard. He writes to his wife. Has -- somebody found this letter, by accident in his -- in this volume there? It's a very wonderful letter by which William James asserts this very faith, that it is not enough to be William James, but that he's only, you see, in peace with the ages that have gone before, if he has made his father's voice heard, too. So that in addition to age, you see, to be -- being his own -- himself, he has also to give -- make room for this age, towering over his age.
You all know an -- an utterance which still can be repeated with some acceptance in this country. When Lincoln died in the -- in the morning, as you know, after the assassination, the secretary of war said -- Stanton, what did he say?
(Now you belong to the ages.)
To the ages. We belong to the ages when we have become understandable to the next and the previous generation, as well as our own. And as long as we only belive- -- belong to our own age, we just haven't done that. We belong to the ages, and otherwise you only belong to your own age. It's all the difference. That is what is im- -- implied in Mr. Stanton's word, and he was truer than he could know at that time. Lincoln belongs to the ages, you see, and we are very different -- indifferent to the poor digestion, and the -- his marital troubles which he had in his own age.
So we shall call this level, gentlemen, where the ages are connected, a level of universal history. You belong to the ages when you have entered something, you see, that can penetrate the fog of your -- any one's own time. Can you see this? It's stratospheric, so to speak. The fog and the -- the clouds, and the atmosphere of your terrestrial existence is not blinding you to this fact that in the stratosphere, the spirit of Lincoln is still there. Now that was Henry James' father's problem. And I have been asked a very pertinent question in this connection which you now kindly will repeat. Ja.
(Not I.)
(It was me.)
Oh, it was you. Pardon me. I'm sorry. I'm -- get up and speak. Get up and speak. They can't hear you otherwise.
(My point, Sir, is that a -- that a heretic can't exist as a -- a heretic can't exist first of all in a family. There is no such thing as a heretic when it's the part of a father, that a heretic can only break away from a previous authority. The definition of a heretic is one who -- who places, or substitutes an authority of his own, so that -- of a pre-existing authority, whether it be personal or ideological, and that -- in the case -- although I don't know about William James, but in the case of all other heretics that I have ever studied, it's a man who places his new authority in his own beliefs, and his own private beliefs and breaks away from pre-existing authority. And take, for instance, music. You can take any of the -- any of the -- the -- the heretics of music like Mozart, or Beethoven, who superimposed their own ideas on a new generation. Now these things are not accepted, as you said, Sir, emotionally or through the spirit -- or through the heart. They're accepted intellectually, and that a heretic cannot transmit his content or his attitudes intel- -- anything except intellectually. Otherwise he's not a heretic. He's a sentimentalist. And he cannot be a { } theologian.)
Well, it's so wonderful, you have learned all these things. Now, I like you to consider your own situation in real life. And you will find it's much more complicated. Jesus was a heretic, and He was very orthodox. The -- the ideal is, of course, to be authority and heretic, and free, both. There life only begins. You're only moving on this lower level there, you see. Either-or. That's not your real life. And I prove it to you.
I have published an essay, which perhaps I should recommend to your attention: "Youth and Authority." "Youth and Authority" was published by the Harvard University Press in 1940. And I put the simple question -- we have 287 denominations in America. And all these denominations have created at a certain
time by heretics. Or most of them. Just started in this country. And yet they have all asked their children to belong to the same denomination. That's why you have a Society of Friends, and -- you have Quakers to this day, although the children, you see, were left without authority officially. And the Quakers do not claim any authority. But they are -- you have hereditary Quakers, and you have hereditary Baptists, and you have a whole group of people where you know they have been Baptists for 200 years, which is a contradiction in terms. But there life begins only, Sir, you see. It's too simple, your logic. Your logic is in- -- in- -- unassailable, you see. Either-or. Your own authority or not. It isn't true. The heretics have all had a meri- -- a relative -- a relation to authority. They only attack the authority as established, but they try to purify it, and purified it from their own authority, too.
(But that's exactly what I said. I said { }, that's what I mean by "superimposing their own authority.")
Not superimposing, but only using their authority for pulling down wrong authority, but not standing in the way of righteous authority. You only see the destructive thing. "Superimposing their own authority," the -- or they have real heresy. Luther did not say that God hadn't spoken through Moses and the Prophets. He didn't say that Christ wasn't in authority. He only said you had to recognize once more Christ's authority. That isn't superimposing my authority in a positive way, but it is making room for the positive authority which speaks in your heart, my dear man. And that even the pope has to admit that Jean -- Jeanne d'Arc was right against the priests of her time, and that she was an authority, and the priests who burned her was -- were not. And that's good Catholic doctrine. You just -- you don't know the -- even the ABC of Christianity and of faith. It's all here in this country -- it's talked down. What do you think, read, or any orthodox statement about faith, your conscience is still higher, according to Roman Catholic doctrine, than anything the pope says. If your conscience forbids you, you can't do it. It's always super- -- if you call this "superimposed authority" then you don't believe in God. If God cannot speak in every human heart, then the whole story of Christianity and Judaism is just a fake and a hoax -- if it's only a question of one man's authority against another man's authority. It's a question of divine authority and the sources of divine authority in you and me and every other mortal being.
And that is a real question, my dear man, and it cannot be decided by your nice and neat logic. Any mother and any father has to show proof in the education of their children that they are not punishing them wantonly and arbitrarily by superimposed own authority, but because it is necessary that -- that arbitrarily the child must be spanked. It is necessary. Any one would have to act in this place, and then you are right parents. If you make it clear to the -- to your
child, and I hope you will, that he isn't spanked because the father is just a fool, or moody, but because any man who wants to raise children has a responsibility from God to raise children. And he cannot raise children in any spiritual sense if he doesn't punish them. They want to be punished. They wait for it. This ridiculous situation in this country at this moment, where the parents -- don't even know this, because they speak of "superimposed authority." Is it superimposed when a grown-up person has to bring up a little one, with all the means and the might in his power? He has to.
(That's exactly what I'm saying. Henry James was therefore not a heretic to his family.)
Oh, you want to limit the use of the word "heretic." Yes, but this is very important to see that he accept, you see -- we are all heretics.
(No father can be a heretic to his son. A son may be a heretic to his father. But once -- he can -- he can change the authority. He can try and alter an authority. He can try and substitute himself.)
You are not seeing what I'm trying to say. Let me -- perhaps I have to be too much down-to-earth with the James family.
Gentlemen, so long we have tried to find the divine will in a universal history, or in a universal revelation. Down to 1865, there was a church and you could appeal to it and its -- there was the ...
...seems very modest to you, and not interesting and you -- most people in this country prefer Mr. Strike with Union Now, or they prefer some tremendous scheme of a World Court or of a United Nations. But God is very much a concrete creator of direct and special situations. And I assure you, if you look into the problem of the authority of Henry James and William James, you will see that he solved and answered your remark in a very different way, because he didn't treat his children spiritually, as permanent children. He told them that they would be equals in the realm of the spirit in their own generation. He could not superimpose his authority in his family. And he didn't. He said, "I am a heretic and I want you to be heretics, but you must have still the religious conviction that you stand for creation, for the whole, and not for department of science, and not for department of a school, or of -- teaching, or -- education department, or the department of chemistry. You haven't understood that he already anticipated your remark and said, "I'm more radical." What's your name?
({Rafelson}.)
Well, then Mr. {Rafelson}. I'm not satisfied with this eternal drawback that parents, after they have been free thinkers for themselves, then have suddenly to impose -- superimpose their authority on their children. That's too much of a -- of a -- of a contradiction, you see. Here is a man, a Dartmouth student. He has cut all the classes and then he goes to his child and says he has to be on -- on time at the dinner table. So the child says, "I cut the dinner table. You cut classes." And I think the child's utterly right, you see.
So Henry James comes about -- Henry James, Sr. -- and says, "My son, I'm perfectly happy as long as he cuts the dinner table out of your schedule for the same good reason for which I have cut out of the Church. But it must be an equally good reason. It mustn't be indifference, it mustn't be misunderstanding, it mustn't be laziness of heart, but if you have such a overpowering reason as I have to remain a free man, God bless you."
Jesus saw a man working on the Sabbath. That's -- is outside the official Biblical reading. But in the best manuscript in the Gospel, Luke, 5th chapter. You probably don't know the story, because it's not in our official text, although nobody doubts that it is authentic. And he saw -- looked at the man and he said to him, "Man, if you do not know what you are doing, you are cursed. But if you know what you are doing, you are blessed." Now here you have the three levels of behavior. A man who breaks the Sabbath from indifference, laziness, not knowing what he's doing, is cursed, because gentlemen, compared to your childishness, your indifference, your laziness, the law is better. The Sabbath is better than the man who's not on terms with the Sabbath. For example, that's what this story is about. But if you have an outstanding, overpowering reason that you say, "The Sabbath is good, but what I'm doing is better," to -- to come to the rescue of a -- of a poor man, at this moment, you see, and thereby leaving the church, the services alone, then you are blessed.
So gentlemen, the question of the -- of the heresy or authority is only soluble if you admit three levels of performance: the individualistic performance, which is haphazardous, from your own mood; the lawful, traditional performance, which is of long-standing authority; and the creation of a next performance, which does not deny that it is good to keep the law, to come at -- to dinner at -- in due time, you see, to attend classes, but which is allowed to enter the scene because you have fully realized the goodness of coming to my class, the necessity of being on time for the luncheon or the dinner at home, but the experience that something bigger is at stake at this moment in the life of the world for which it is good to sacrifice the schedule of the dinner table, or the schedule of this class. Can you -- can't you see this? This is the human problem, gentlemen.
The human problem is never an either-or. It is the problem of the -- the tremendous law, the law of history, that the good is the enemy of the better. The good is the enemy of the better. It is never a question of good and evil. Who -- who wants to do evil? I haven't found people who want to do evil; they all just dress it up as good. But I have found innumerable so-called "good" people who prevent the creative life of -- of ever breaking in because they are satisfied with the good. The good is the enemy of the better.
Now, the -- the preaching of Henry James, Sr., is -- may be summed up in one sentence: the good is the enemy of the better. The good is the enemy of the better. He says, "I {have}, of course, to act as your father. I have to support you. I have to -- you have to sit at my table. But woe to you if you think what I have to say at this table is the best. It isn't. It is all I now can give, but the hour will strike out in which you will have to decide what is the best." That isn't superimposed authority. That isn't making the heretic into a patriarch in the family. But it is solidly the issue of the ages, gentlemen, how the better can come to pass without denying that good is good. Can you see the difference? It's -- you all will have to grow up certain -- grow out -- outgrow certain things which you think are the ultimate in life. Don't deny them. But say there is something more important and better to be done, you see. Then you will be free. As long as it is a struggle of " this is evil," and you will do good, you will never be able to the very best you can do. The world as created is good, gentlemen, but it isn't good enough.
Therefore, the whole, real battle of history is between good and better. And it is not between evil and good. I mean -- I understand that a man doesn't murder and doesn't kidnap. You have in this -- country, of course, only the constant relapse into full barbarism, I mean, kidnapping this -- this child there, and things. Well, I think that isn't worthy of a debate. Let this man be executed. Let this woman be executed. I won't shed any tear. I have no pity with the Rosenbergs. I do- -- never understood it was a Russian -- a Communist issue, of course, to -- to make the president of this country to make him weaken his position and ask him to show mercy to these people. What is below good, I mean, is of no concern to me. But life, gentlemen, is suffocated if the better is not allowed to come to -- into being, compared to the good. That is the real battle. That's worth your -- your interest.
As long as you think it is -- I mean, it is very easy to agree that murderers must be -- must be put away. And to -- we have forever -- however liberalism, you see, having this wrong idea of only fighting good -- evil, you see, and -- and -- and believing that the good is already there, have -- have shed all the tears about the criminals. So they are pardoned too early, and then they commit their next crime. This country, after all, sees the worst crimes committed by the people who have been pardoned, you see, from a false sense of pity. Why? Because
good people's interest has always been directed into this direction, that it is a most important thing to care for the -- for the criminals.
I mean, we have a funny situation today. The -- for the criminal, it is cared for, but I have a grandchild that has -- is a genius, really, in talent and gift, and she has to sit in a class of 50 at the age of 8 and she's bored stiff. Now that's criminal, you see. They think they have a good school there, but they -- should have a better. And my real interest is only how I can rescue this child from this relatively good school to teach her {as an angel}? But what can she do with -- with 50 children in one class? And that is a scandal. But whether this man there who has kidnapped this -- this little boy is immediately electrocuted or hanged is not -- no interest to me. Behead him, poison him, I don't care. Put him in a bag and drown him, I mean. But all the interest in the United States has gone into the fight between good and evil, because the march of history has been excluded here. The march of history says that good things are good and we know already that evil has to be penalized, but we have still to go one better. And we cannot just put a child under the law of public education, you see, and sanitize it. We have to rescue this child from the good of -- of compulsory education. You -- you understand? That's today the issue.
I know a child in this town that has been ruined by the superstition of his parents that he should -- has -- must go to public school because that's the best they can do for him. And I told them, this child has to live better than these ridiculous schools in which people are made happy. This one probably wants to go. It's a long story, and I -- I'm afraid Mr. Keep has heard this story already twice, have you not? And so this boy, what did he become? I mean, since they didn't allow him expectations and promises, and a great school, he grew backward. He netted -- wetted his bed again, and he began to stammer, and he became two years old, because a living being that is not allowed to go forward will always go backward, and they thought they could just, you see, do no harm by sending him to this allegedly good Hanover High School. But they -- I have never seen a case where the good was the enemy of that which these parents owed their child, the very best. The creative thing, they had to invent the -- a way out. I offered them to send him to England. Anything would have been better but this so-called "good" school. And that's what is important, because here is a good boy. And he was not a -- what do I care for the -- for the non-good boy? But I do care that the good boy gets the very best, and that has to be created for him against the good.
So there are always three levels, gentlemen, three levels. You can have a playboy, who isn't even himself. Here, the {joiner}. {That's on the} lowest possible level. That's the mass man. I mean, that's the fraternity brother, the man who is always everything to everybody and nothing to himself. And he never
reaches even the -- the adulthood of -- of -- of self. He always nods -- what everybody else said, he says, too. Well, I'm not talking of this infantile level. I'm talking of the level of personality, of character, of individualism. And I say this is good, but it isn't good enough. Lincoln wouldn't be interesting if he had just been as ambitious as his secretary of state, Mr. Seward, who then later became judge- -- Chief Justice and was paid off, so to speak, like Earl Warren, for his ambitions of becoming president. That's not important. So neither Mr. Warren nor Mr. Seward belong to the ages. You can be sure that Mr. Warren doesn't. That's a political deal. And that's all right. No harm done, but he doesn't belong to the ages. He cannot. He has only tried to establish himself, and that isn't enough in history. The people are not interesting who are success stories. They are -- it isn't even important. I mean, it's neither here nor there. It's good. But isn't the best. The best is only a man, gentlemen, who can rise about -- above the {talk} of his own time and make people in his own time become aware of the fullness of time, of the fulfillment of destiny of ma- -- the human race through and in his own generation. And I assure you that a father, like Henry James, and I hope myself -- and you, too when you are a father -- has this tremendous tri- { }. He first has -- must pray that he has a normal child, and not an imbecile. Then he must pray that this child goes independent, you see. And then he must pry- -- pray that this child comes back to him, and not to him as a person himself, you see, but to that which he has tried to represent while he was his father. And that -- are three things to be done, not two.


text:
Julija Solntseva (russisk: Ю́лия Ипполи́товна Со́лнцева) (født den 7. august 1901 i Moskva i det Russiske Kejserrige, død den 28. oktober 1989 i Moskva i Sovjetunionen) var en sovjetisk filminstruktør og skuespillerinde.

Filmografi
 Poema o more (Поэма о море, 1958)
 De flammende år (Повесть пламенных лет, 1961)
 Zatjarovannaja Desna (Зачарованная Десна, 1964)

Referencer

Eksterne henvisninger

Filminstruktører fra Sovjetunionen

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
class testApp : public ofBaseApp{

	public:
		void setup();
		void update();
		void draw();
	void playSample();

		void keyPressed  (int key);
		void keyReleased(int key);
		void mouseMoved(int x, int y );
		void mouseDragged(int x, int y, int button);
		void mousePressed(int x, int y, int button);
		void mouseReleased(int x, int y, int button);
		void windowResized(int w, int h);

	int width, height;

	shpe shape1;

	int mX, mY;
	int sizeE;

	ofSoundPlayer sound[3];

};

#endif

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


On this website we recommend many images about Air Handler Wiring Diagram that we have collected from various sites of Wiring Diagram, and of course what we recommend is the most excellent of images for Air Handler Wiring Diagram.	If you like the images on our website, please do not hesitate to visit again and get inspiration from all Wiring Diagram of our images collection.
And if you want to see more images more we recommend the gallery below, you can see the picture as a reference images from your Air Handler Wiring Diagram.
Thank you for seeing gallery of Air Handler Wiring Diagram, we would be very happy if you come back.
Trane Wiring Schematic Diagrams And Air Handler Diagram. Lennox Air Handler Wiring Diagram 6 Smo Zionsnowboards De For. Air Conditioner Wiring Diagram Picture 1 Yuk18 Allmylovedesign De And Handler. Rheem Rhll Wiring Diagram Kdv All2tell Nl Within Air Handler.
Labeled : air handler fa4anf060 wiring diagram, air handler motor wiring diagram, air handler thermostat wiring diagram, air handler wiring diagram, air handler wiring diagram for a pcb 138, carrier air handler wiring diagram, comfortmaker air handler wiring diagram, janitrol air handler wiring diagram, Air Handler Wiring Diagram.


text:
Wu Group Study Shows Defects Can "Hulk- Up" Materials
by Materials Science and Engineering
As the exposure to gamma radiation transformed scientist Bruce Banner into the Hulk, exposure to alpha-particle radiation, has shown to "Hulk-Up" certain thermoelectric materials, transforming them into more powerful versions of themselves. When properly managed, a damaged thermoelectric material's performance can be enhanced by a factor up to ten.
The ability of thermoelectric materials to convert either heat into electricity, or electricity into cooling, means a potentially large source of clean, green energy. Past studies have shown that the efficiency of heat-to- electricity conversion, measured as ZT, is limited by the coupling of thermopower, thermal conductivity, and electrical conductivity; Normally, when thermopower is enhanced, it causes a reduction of electrical conductivity. But, in this study, the Wu group has found a way to break this coupling, demonstrating an increase in both electrical conductivity and thermopower. By exposing thin-films of bismuth telluride, a well-characterized thermoelectric, to alpha-particles, Wu and his group have achieved the highest ZT rating ever recorded for bismuth telluride at room temperature, a value of 1.24. They believe their technique can also be used to improve the ZT values of other thermoelectric materials.
A paper titled "Simultaneous Enhancement of Electrical Conductivity and Thermopower of Bi2Te3 by Multi-Functionality of Native Defects" with lead author Joonki Suh, has been published in Advanced Materials.
Read full story here
Department offices are located in 210 Hearst Memorial Mining Building, in the Northeast corner of campus.
Department of Materials Science and Engineering
210 Hearst Memorial Mining Building

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


How to clean and dry your carafe or decanter?
– First of all, use hot water (not boiling): even when the tool is not cleaned right after its use. Pouring hot water into it and leaving overnight will help the stains and deposits to soften.
– Using restaurant crystal cleaner as a soap.
– Using the cleaner with the right brushes will give you the best result.
– If the stain is too adhered to the glass you should use decanter cleaning balls.
– Dry it using a decanter stand.
– Finally, once you have used the stand and it seems like there is still water or condensed water, use the Eich Glas Wine Decanter Dryer.
– Do not forget to put water inside if you are not going to clean it until the next day.
– Do not use methyl alcohol.
– Don't use normal dishwashing detergent.
– Don't use a usual sponge to clean your carafe or decanter since it could scratch its very sensitive glass.
How and when to polish your decanter?
If your carafe or your decanter looks matte and you think that the glass starts loosing its beautiful shiny texture, you could polish it. To do that, the carafe or decanter has to be in direct contact with hot water (so under the water), and you should allow the steam to build around the piece. This way, it softens any existent residues it may have. Finally the next step would be to polish it with a micro-fibre cloth until the all steam and any rests of water are removed.


"After exiting the swim in the a pack of three near the tail of the racers I went to work on the bike picking my way through the men's field on the challenging hilly bike course. Into T2 and out on the run I was able to run down three more athletes finishing in 15th overall.
The SLS3 Triathlon suit works great. It was comfortable and dried quicker than my skin. The compression was an added bonus help shield the legs from the pounding of the 10k run. I utilized throughout the trip the SLS3 compression socks and recovery tights to help with post workout recovery and stave off the heavy leg syndrome felt after flying."


TEHRAN, May 24, YJC - A so-called monitoring group says more than a dozen civilians have lost their lives when the US-led coalition purportedly fighting the Daesh Takfiri terrorist group carried out a string of aerial attacks against an area in Syria's militant-held northern province of Raqqah.
TEHRAN, Young Journalists Club (YJC) - The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said (SOHR) said on Wednesday that the airstrikes targeted the village of al-Baruda, located about 15 kilometers west of the provincial capital city of Raqqah, leaving at least 16 civilians dead.
The Britain-based monitoring group added that five young siblings were among those killed in the aerial raids.
On May 15, a US-led airstrike targeted the city of Abu Kamal in Syria's eastern province of Dayr al-Zawr near the border with Iraq. Nearly two dozen civilians lost their lives as a result of the attack.
The SOHR noted that some of those killed in the strike were civilians displaced from both Raqqah province and neighboring Iraq.
The development came less than two days after a US-led aerial attack in Raqqah killed 12 women.
The observatory said the strike had hit vehicles carrying farm workers home from fields in the east of the embattled Syrian province.
The city of Raqqah, which lies on the northern bank of the Euphrates River, was overrun by Daesh terrorists in March 2013, and was proclaimed the center for most of the Takfiris' administrative and control tasks the next year.
The US-led coalition has repeatedly been accused of targeting and killing civilians. It has also been largely incapable of fulfilling its declared aim of destroying Daesh.
Meanwhile, Syrian government forces have killed the "war minister" of the Takfiri Daesh terrorist group during counter-terrorism operations in the embattled northwestern province of Aleppo.
A military source, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Syria's official news agency, SANA, on Wednesday that Abu Musab al-Masri was among 13 high-ranking militant commanders slain on the eastern outskirts of Aleppo, located some 355 kilometers north of the capital Damascus.
The source identified Saudi and Iraqi nationals, namely Abu Abdullah Mohammed Sameih al-Kisri, Ali Nazal Qarah Bash and Sufian Mohammed Abboush, among the dead.
The Pentagon claimed last year that the previous Daesh minister of war, identified as Abu Omar al-Shishani, had been killed in a US-led strike in Syria.
The Daesh militant group later confirmed Shishani's death but said he had died in fighting in the Iraqi city of Sharqat, located some 300 kilometers (190 miles) north of the capital Baghdad, Presstv reported.
Syrian military forces and their allies also restored security and stability to a number of villages and towns, including al-Mahdoum, al-Bailouneh, Jirah Sagheir, Tel Hassan, Umm Nesourah, Wajab Ali, Bani Zeid, Kherbet Hassan and al-Khaldieh, in the eastern countryside of Aleppo.
The recent military operations reportedly in the death and injury of over 3,000 Daesh terrorists, and destroyed 19 battle tanks, five amphibious infantry fighting vehicles, 11 car bombs, six artillery shells, nine arms depots, two communication centers, and 61 field command centers.
Syria has been fighting different foreign-sponsored militant groups since March 2011.
UN Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura estimated last August that more than 400,000 people had been killed in the crisis until then.


text:
George Edwin Tackaberry (May 6, 1874 - November 19, 1937) was a Canadian boot maker remembered today as the inventor of a long-lived brand of ice hockey skate sold by CCM called the CCM "Tack". (CCM "Tacks".)

Early life
Tackaberry apprenticed as a shoemaker in his home town of Dresden, Ontario. He moved to Brandon, Manitoba in 1892 with his wife Helen where he specialized in orthopaedic shoes for the handicapped.

Work with CCM
Tackaberry's neighbour Joe Hall, a professional hockey player, complained to Tackaberry about his hockey boots not lasting him the entire season without collapsing and in 1905 commissioned Tackaberry to make him a new, more durable pair of boots. Combining the natural strength of kangaroo leather with a reinforced toe, Tackaberry had the winning combination. The following year in 1906, Tackaberry was flooded with orders from Hall's team members, the business took off from there and this specific style of boot became known as the Tackaberry.

With his passing in 1937, Tackaberry's wife Helen sold the patent to CCM.  The boots, commonly called "CCM Tacks", remained CCM's primary skate until 2006, and are still on the market, and popular, today.

External links

Further reading

1874 births
1937 deaths
Businesspeople from Ontario
People from Chatham-Kent


Are we considering Josh Rosen?
Discussion in 'Steelers Talk' started by Timbrr, Mar 22, 2019.
Listening to Cowherd this morning and he had one of his NFL experts on. He mentioned that Pittsburgh may be one of the team's who might be interested. It sounds like it would take a 2nd round pick. With all Ben's drama and him getting up there this doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. Your thoughts.
Asked and answered before: NO! Highly overrated IMO.
I'm not a huge fan even if it were appropriate for the Steelers. The only time it'd be appropriate if Ben was not available along with Dobbs and Rudolph showing they are not capable of being starters in the league.
Even then I'd be targeting another QB.
Geez, an old vet QB just signed to a contract extension, Josh Rosen, Mason Rudolh and Dobbs too!?
Looking at the first 5 words you wrote and I couldn't read any further.
I think we should go after him. He and DHB can play both ways. We could give away all our draft picks because all our problems would be solved!
Since Ben is probably going to linger on like Favre no thanks.
If anything the cardinals general manager should be fired after trading up to select him #10 and then giving up on him after one year. Reports are they would take a 4th. A 4th.
Wish that Colbert had the stones to just dump Dupree, but no, he will Finally put it all together and become the fierce force sack machine In his 5th year. Throw money, throw money, throw money away.
It's not the Cardinals GM who necessarily wants Rosen gone. The new coach said he has no plans for him so it's a waste to even have him on the roster.
Word on the street is that the Pats are likely to get Rosen. That's if Brady doesn't pout because he wants to play till he's 50 or whatever.
Yeah I'm not even sure why people would think the Steelers could be in a bidding war for him compared to other teams.
We still have no clue how Mason Rudolph will turn out in this league.
I am in favor of moving up to get Devin Bush, however. I'm a little concerned the Steelers will once again strike out in their attempt to replace Shazier's role at ILB.
It's cautious optimism but there's a part of me that thinks Rudolph will turn into something special. Like I've said many times before my fear is Ben will want to stick around too long and we will never find out.
Mason could also provide trade value. So I'm not all that concerned about it if they play their cards right.
Dont look now. Something just flew over your head.
Ben gets broken. If Rudolph has the talent, he should get opportunities. That should get his foot in the door?


text:
Did you know that the bulbs of the Muscari plant are often used in Southern Italian cuisine althought this plant is poisonous?
Muscari - Muscari botryoides
Muscari - Grape Hyacinth (Muscari spp.)
Muscari is a genus of 50 species of bulbs, commonly called grape hyacinths, occurring from sea level to sub-alpine areas in the Mediterranean region and South West Asia. The fleshy leaves are arranged in basal clusters with flowers borne in dense spikes on leafless stems in spring.
The name of the genus, Muscari, comes from the Greek word for "moschos" meaning 'musk' and refers to the sweet aromatic scent of the flowers which, together with their often deep blue colouring, has made them popular in cultivation. The common name is grape hyacinth, from the way their flowerhead resembles that of a hyacinth.
Muscari look their best grown in large massed plantings such as those which can be seen on the Rock Garden, Battleston Hill and in the Wild Garden, where they thrive in full sun and the moist, well-drained soil that they require.
Grape Hyacinths have been gardened for centuries. They are native to Greece and the Middle East, but have been grown in the UK since 1576 and were very familiar to the Elizabethans, but were likely gardened even in the Greek & Roman ages. An Anglo-Saxon translation of Dioscorides preserves an otherwise forgotten myth of their origin, the first grape hyacinths having sprung from spilled dragon's blood on a forested mountain peak.
The Grape Hyacinth, has, like the Wild Hyacinth, a poisonous bulb. The small, dark blue flowers, looking almost like little berries and having a sweet scent. A few of the uppermost are of a pale blue, erect, much narrower and without stamens or pistils. As the flowers of the various species of Muscari secrete much nectar, they are reckoned among the useful bee plants of the spring. The Grape Hyacinth has sometimes been called Starch Hyacinth, as the flowers have been supposed to smell of wet starch.
Muscari has been used in medicine for its diuretic and stimulant properties, but British experts do not advise or recommend that any part of Grape Hyacinth is eaten.
However Italians have deferent opinion. Lampagioni, a species of Muscari, also called lampascioni or cipollacci, are often used in Southern Italian cuisine, especially in the Puglia region. They are a kind of bulb, similar to an onion, with a rather strong, bitter taste. After cooking they become reddish. Prior to cooking, the outer leaves must be removed and the bulbs should soak in cool water (which should be changed occasionally) so that some of their bitterness is lost. Otherwise they can be half cooked, drained, and cooked in fresh water until they are done. They are used in salads, fried, and marinated in oil or vinegar.
http://www.rhs.org.uk/ WhatsOn/gardens/wisley/archive/wisleypcimarch.asp
http://www.paghat.com/muscaribotryoides.html
http://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/h/hyagra42.html
http://home.tiscali.nl/~hennessy/teeltweb/use/nieuwe_pagina_2.htm


A precision mindset is the most important requirement for successful precision ag technology adoption.
One of my first VRI (variable rate irrigation) programs was a major failure. The field I implemented it in contained a heavy clay soil with limited infiltration potential and was highly susceptible to runoff. I decided on a standard approach to VRI and built a standard prescription based on my training at that point.
Being an excessively dry year, the grower had called with concerns as he was seeing signs of stress in the crop. My reply was "Trust me. It will be OK." Wow!! Was that a mistake. We finished out the irrigation season with him trusting me and when I went out to pull the probe, I became sick to my stomach. I was walking through corn only head high (I'm 5'9"). The pivot wheel tracks where only a couple inches deep. (One of the only benefits of this experience.) The ground was so dry not even the weeds could survive. It was going to be a devastating harvest.
NEVER tell a farmer "Trust me. It will be OK".
Precision irrigation solutions are not best when "standardized".
Mindset and expectations, if not well understood, can be devastating.
In the years since that initial VRI learning experience, I've been blessed to help implement and manage several thousand precision irrigation programs (including a program from that experience called RCS — Runoff Control Scripting.) Each one has been successful and uniquely different. However, the real success comes through what I call the Precision Mindset and the confidence it creates in the clients.
Precision Mindset can be defined as a mindset precisely focused on a specific purpose, cause, or objective that will enhance, change, or improve an existing input, product, or service. A Precision Mindset is an intentional creation and cannot just "happen". Because it requires intentional change, many individuals will stay fixed on traditional mindsets and miss the opportunities Precision Mindset offers. Most often traditional mindsets will keep us looking at production maps and building zones based on yield, imagery, and sampled nutrient levels. While this may work to some level on the non-irrigated acres, under irrigation this mindset is devastating.
We've tried that before and it didn't work.
When I hear this because I always wonder: What didn't work? What was the objective, purpose, or expectation going into implementation? Was there a "root cause" for the program or was it implemented to "save money" or "make more yield"? While those results are great to strive for, this is where standardization limitations come into place. Precision Mindset goes deeper into the HOW this will happen. It's an intense focus on a definite purpose that will ABSOLUTELY result in saved money or more yield. You may ask: Is that really possible? On the irrigated acres it is. Why? Because there you have control of the biggest yield liming factor, which is water. You can offset weather affects, and you can focus potential on water availability.
That may work where you're from but it won't work here.
This is a true statement. To a certain extent. But on the irrigated acre, with a Precision Mindset this is a non-issue. Soil basics are fixed to any given field. These basics being soil type (sand, silt, clay) and topography. The other variables like OM and pH are variables that can change but only with intensive action and time. Precision Mindsets knows, or rather learns, what the potential is in moisture optimizing each fixed region. Once that is accomplished optimizing or offsetting the weather becomes the highest priority.
The point is regardless where you live, Precision Mindsets are finding ways to use the fixed regional potentials to become more efficient, and more profitable by taking advantage of what doesn't change. This is an extremely important concept when moving into multi-variety planting on irrigated acres.
We're doing OK by doing what we've always done.
This makes me cringe and yet I completely understand where they're coming from. When doing things you know work, you have to ask: "Is there a reason to change?" The short answer is yes. Why? Because the world around us is constantly changing and if we don't change there is no way to fully realize a product's profit potential unless we're changing along with it. Let me share two examples.
Seed Companies: Seed companies are always improving seed products. The last 40 years has seen more growth in this industry than all the previous years combined. Insect resistance, chemical resistance, drought tolerance, etc. These traits have given us the potential to do more when used for the right reasons in the right locations.
Equipment Companies: Technology has completely changed the way we'll view equipment forever. We'll soon forget the real value of the 4020 or the IH 806 and the simple transformation those tractors brought to the industry. Today's new equipment contains more technology than most entire households contain. I mean, think about a combine and all the wire harnesses and the number of sensors on that equipment today. It's mind blowing!
The point is, as fast as technology is changing every input process, into every fixed variable mentioned in point 2, it's becoming more and more evident that change is, or will be required, to remain profitable. However, change just for the sake of change isn't always healthy. Changing with a specific focus and objective is the only way to be truly successful. Again, with 17 years experience in precision agriculture, those with Precision Mindsets keep changing and are today preparing for any challenges that come there way.
In summary and in my opinion, Precision Mindsets allow growers, their data specialists, and all employees to stay focused on the core objectives. The one thing we didn't talk about here is how important Precision Mindsets are for on farm adoption. What does Precision Mindset mean to you and how are you implementing it into your operation today?
Kylen Hunt is the Chief Sales Officer for CropMetrics. His teams focus primarily on full-farm precision Irrigation adoption and transformational training programs. In seeing the profitable results with intense precise irrigation management, Kylen has become passionate about building sustainable precision water programs using CropMetrics precision technology tools. See all author stories here.


text:
Q: AJAX & jQuery $.getJSON(...) throws XMLHttpRequest This could be another "I'm dinosaur" question, but I'm just starting with front-end stuff.
So I built application which returns me JSON via URL:
http://localhost:8080/json

and this returns:
{"id":41,"content":"Hello, World!"}

dev tools:
Remote Address:[::1]:8080
Request URL:http://localhost:8080/json
Request Method:GET
Status Code:200 OK

Well I've managed to create "web application" with following code:
<!DOCTYPE html>
<head>
    <script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.11.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
</head>
<body>
</body>
<script>
    $.getJSON("http://localhost:8080/json", function(response) {
        alert(response);
    });
</script>
</html>

When i launch it I can see on a console:
XMLHttpRequest cannot load http://localhost:8080/json.
No 'Access-Control-Allow-Origin' header is present on the requested resource.
Origin 'null' is therefore not allowed access.

Why on earth this thing don't want to cooperate. What m I missing here?

A: When your "Webapplication" is not hosted under Access-Control-Allow-Origin than the webserver on localhost:8080 needs to allow you to do XMLHttpRequest.
This must be done by the HTTP Header Access-Control-Allow-Origin (which can also contain * for every site or an url of your "Webapplication")

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


The expansion of renewable energy has been widely criticised for increasing weather-dependent fluctuations in European electricity generation. A new study shows that this is due less to the variability of weather than from a failure to consider the large-scale weather conditions across the whole continent: many European countries are unilaterally following national strategies to expand wind-energy capacities without looking beyond their own backyard.
It would be better, however, for individual countries to work together and to promote the expansion of wind capacity in other European regions that are currently making very little use of wind power. Balancing capacity across the continent would effectively minimise the extreme fluctuations caused by the varied weather conditions that currently affect wind speeds.
This is the conclusion reached by a group of weather and energy researchers from ETH Zürich and Imperial College London in a new study, which has just been published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
The researchers conducted their study by combining Europe-wide data on large-scale weather conditions from the past 30 years with wind and solar electricity production data. This made use of the Renewables.ninja platform developed at ETH Zürich for simulating the output of Europe's wind and solar farms based on historical weather data. This open simulation tool is available for anyone to use worldwide, as part of the effort to improve transparency and openness of science.
The researchers used this data to model how wind power is related to seven prevailing 'weather regimes' in Europe and how it will change with the further expansion of wind energy capacity. These weather regimes explain why European wind-electricity generation suffers from fluctuations lasting several days.
Some regimes are characterised by cyclones rolling in from the Atlantic bringing high winds to western Europe, but these are accompanied by concurrent calm conditions in the east. Other regimes see calmer weather from the Atlantic. But at the same time, wind speeds consistently increase in southern Europe and northern Scandinavia.
"There is hardly a weather situation in which there is no wind across the entire continent and thus all of Europe would lack wind power potential," explained Christian Grams, lead author of the study from the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science at ETH Zurich.
However, today's wind farms are distributed irregularly across Europe, mostly in countries bordering the North Sea. This results in uneven wind electricity generation, because most capacity is installed in neighbouring countries with similar weather conditions.
This means that if a stable high-pressure system causes a lull for a few days or even weeks over the North Sea, as happened in the winter of 2016/17, Europe-wide wind electricity generation drops dramatically.
The problem for Europe's power system will be exacerbated by countries following their own national strategies for expanding wind power, which will further concentrate capacity in the North Sea region.
This will lead to even more extreme fluctuations: the difference between high production in favourable wind conditions and low production during a lull could be as much as 100 gigawatts – roughly the same capacity as 100 nuclear power plants – and would have to be made available or held back within the course of only a few days.
If European countries were to co-operate and set up future wind farms based on understanding of the continent-scale weather regimes, fluctuations in future wind energy could be stabilised at the current level of around 20 gigawatts. The Balkans, Greece, the western Mediterranean and northern Scandinavia are all potential sites.
These locations would all have enough wind if, for example, high pressure led to a lull in the North Sea.
Likewise, if a stable high-pressure area slowed wind production in the Mediterranean, the wind farms around the North Sea would produce enough electricity.
"This is why wind capacity in countries such as Greece or Bulgaria could act as a valuable counterbalance to Europe's current wind farms. However, this would require a paradigm shift in the planning strategies of countries with wind power potential," emphasised co-author Iain Staffell from Imperial College London.
The authors say that it would be difficult to store electricity for several days to balance these multi-day fluctuations – with batteries or pumped-storage lakes in the Alps, for example – since the necessary amount of storage capacity will not be available in the foreseeable future. Current storage technologies are more suited to compensating for shorter fluctuations of a few hours or days.
Moreover, a wider geographical distribution of wind farms also requires the expansion of the transmission grid. However, such a pan-European renewable energy system could still provide Switzerland with the opportunity to use its hydropower capacities more economically in order to compensate for short-term fluctuations.
Using solar energy to compensate for gaps over several days would only work on a regional level at best. The researchers say that in order to compensate for fluctuations across Europe, solar energy capacity would have to be increased tenfold.
"The sun often shines when it's calm," explained co-author Stefan Pfenninger, from the Institute for Environmental Decisions at ETH Zürich, "but in winter, there is often not enough sunshine in central and northern Europe to produce sufficient electricity using solar panels." It would therefore make little sense to compensate for fluctuations in wind energy with a massive expansion of solar capacity.
The researchers now hope that energy producers and network operators, as well as governments and politicians, will hear about these new findings and better coordinate Europe-wide planning and grid expansion.


Rosalind & Pete tied the knot at the beautiful Rockhaven Farm, which is situated in the lush Elgin Valley in the Western Cape. A backdrop of apple & pear orchards and golden summer tones made this wedding an absolute pleasure to photograph.
The simple yet elegant reception decor was put together by 4 Every Event, and Ros's hair & makeup was done by the talented Kirsti Van Zyl from Blush and Brush.