text:
On Philosophy
Filed under: Language,Mind — Peter @ 11:39 pm
Comments Off on The Big Picture
2: A Rose By Any Other Name Would Smell As Sweet.
Filed under: Language — Peter @ 12:40 am
1. Interpretation: By claiming that the rose would smell the same no matter what it was called this saying is asserting that reality trumps language. Reality is what is actually there and is independent of human perspectives, and how a rose smells is fact that is part of reality. What label we use to designate a rose has no effect on the facts about it. That a particular label is stuck to a particular part of reality is therefore simply a coincidence, and when thinking about things we are free to ignore their labels, since the labels tell us nothing about the thing itself.
Evaluation: Certainly it is true that the facts are unaffected by how we choose to communicate about them; replacing the word "rose" with some other term will not affect how that rose smells. However, simply dismissing language as irrelevant is too hasty. Language has a significant effect on how we think about things. We usually think about things through particular concepts; when I think of a rose I think about it as a rose, a particular kind of flower distinct from other kinds of flowers. Of course our conceptual distinctions don't necessarily mirror language, but most of the time they do. So, while the particular term we use to label something may not have much significance, how we divide up the world using those terms does. For example, the fact that I call both a white rose and a red rose "rose" means that they fall under the same concept for me. And by falling under the same concept their similarities are readily apparent to me, and I will often think using the concept rose which includes both white and red roses. Suppose instead that I called white roses "flower X" and red roses "roses". Now they will no longer fall under the same concept and thus I will not immediately understand them to be largely similar; their similarities would become apparent only if I explicitly thought about the comparison between flower Xs and roses. Nor will I have a single concept that both flower Xs and roses fall under, making thoughts which previously used that concept much harder to have (since it is no longer possible to think about just a single thing, roses; I must now think about a complex of two things). So, while this interpretation includes the valid insight that specific labels are largely unimportant, it goes too far by concluding that language is largely irrelevant when thinking about reality.
2. Interpretation: By pointing out that the sweetness of the rose is unaffected by what we call the rose this saying expresses the idea that our experience and our understanding of the rose is unaffected by what we choose to call the rose. Even if we called it something else our experience of smelling the rose would remain the same, as would our understanding of that particular rose. The saying teaches us that experience itself is a foundation that language is layered on top of for the purpose of connecting one experience to another and for making sense of them.
Evaluation: Is it really true that our experience of the world is independent of our concepts, and thus of our language? I have heard that with extensive training it is possible to have such experiences, but it doesn't seem to reflect how most of us encounter the world. For most of us looking out the window and seeing a tree does not result in a raw experience of a tree. Rather we have an experience in which the tree is experienced as a tree. In other words our concept tree plays a role in the experience itself, such that if we had no tree concept or a different tree concept we would have a different experience. Another example of how words color our experience is through how they affect our value judgments. For most of us the word "cannibalism" has negative associations, and so to experience something as an act of cannibalism is to experience disgust and revulsion at it. Now consider the Catholic mass. In that ceremony Catholics believe that they literally consume the body of Christ. If they called that act cannibalism they would feel repulsed and disgusted by it. However, Catholics refuse to call or think of that act as cannibalism, and thus avoid having that reaction. So if our language was different and the word we used to describe a sweet smell was associated strongly with the sweet smell of decaying flesh then our experience of the rose might nauseate us by association, even though nothing about the rose is any different.
3. Interpretation: Literally the saying seems to be expressing the idea that language is unimportant because the rose is the same no matter what you call it. However, ironically, the saying can only be understood because it uses the word "rose" and not some other arbitrary word. Thus the saying expresses the inescapability of language. You can call a rose whatever you like, but you have to consistently refer to it by some label or you will be unable to talk about it. We could even go so far as to say that our experience requires some labeling of the world, even though the specifics of that labeling are arbitrary.
Evaluation: As mentioned previously it might be possible to have experiences unmediated by any concepts if you work really hard at it. And if animals experience the world they probably do so without mediation by anything like our concepts. So saying that we need language for experience probably goes too far. However, this interpretation is on to something when it comes to the inescapability of language for communication. When we focus on how arbitrary a particular label is we may believe that language is a layer of indirection separating us from the world that we put up with because we have to. Wouldn't it be nice to just get rid of language and deal unambiguously with the things themselves? If we could do that there would be no room for ambiguity or misinterpretation. However, the only way that would be possible is though some sci-fi merging of minds were we might experience someone else's thoughts as our own. Since that technology doesn't appear forthcoming we are stuck with the need to mediate between thoughts with something that is not itself thought – some symbols that are intended to invoke a particular thought – i.e. a language.
4. Interpretation: Instead of taking this saying to capture some truth about language, as the interpretations so far have, we might instead take it to be offering advice. Specifically it can be read as encouraging us not to be mislead by language and to be guided by what is actually there. A flower should be smelled to determine whether it is sweet. We shouldn't try to understand the world by pondering the words we use to describe the world, but by examining the world directly. Although words do matter in some circumstances, it is best to make decisions based on the facts and leave language to the side as much as possible.
Evaluation: To an extent this is good advice. In the evaluation of interpretation 3 I noted that when we call or think about something as cannibalism we automatically judge it to be a bad thing. It is best to try to set such reactions aside when making decisions. It may be that in general cannibalism is bad, and we may be right to be repulsed by it. However, being guided by the label "cannibalism" is a mistake. Perhaps this case has been labeled inaccurately, or perhaps it is a rare situation of acceptable cannibalism. It is better to be guided by the facts alone, and let the facts motivate our judgment about whether it is good or bad, not a label. Many modern philosophers often fall into this trap; they try to discover facts about the world though how words are used, which can only lead to problems since which words are used, or whether the same word is used to describe two particular things, is often a matter of convention. And attempting to investigate the world by building on mere convention is a recipe for disaster.
However, it would be a mistake to imply that all reasoning on the basis of language is flawed. For example, we might ponder our language itself in order to improve it. Secondly, the way we divide up the world with words often does reflect some significant facts about it. We call white roses and red roses both roses because they really are similar. As was discussed in the evaluation of interpretation 1 how we conceptualize the world affects how we think about the world, and some ways of thinking about the world may be better than others. Since language has evolved over time often the way we use words has some merit (although there are cases of pure convention too). Finally, even though language may be arbitrary, and even though we may be better off ignoring it in some circumstances, language is a valuable and irreplaceable tool and should not be easily dismissed. Nor are the arbitrary conventions of language valueless; when those conventions are not respected communication becomes difficult or impossible and misunderstandings more common.
5. Interpretation: So far none of these interpretations have looked at the quote in its original context. The original context was Romeo trying to convince Juliet that it didn't really matter that she was a Capulet and he was a Montague. In that context the saying could be taken as a warning against taking purely human distinctions seriously. Romeo is saying that sure, people draw a distinction between Montagues and Capulets, but really we are both humans and all that divides us is words. Certainly that isn't the only case of distinctions invented where it is hard to find any real difference; consider the distinction between people of different nationalities. Reasoning on the basis of these distinctions is flawed because there are no real differences behind the linguistic differences.
Evaluation: This is true in a way. People do invent distinctions where none existed before. But is it really the case that there are no differences outside the words? For example, if you know that Benvolio is a Montague and Tybalt is a Capulet you will be able to conclude, correctly, that there is some animosity between them. If Montague and Capulet are distinctions that have no real significance how is it possible to make correct deductions on the basis of them? The answer is that other people also recognize these distinctions, and their recognition of them influences their behavior. And certainly the behavior of people is real enough. Thus distinctions that are invented become real distinctions once they lodge themselves in human minds. And so Juliet should have answered Romeo by pointing out that, because they were Montagues and Capulets, their parents would be furious if they heard of their relationship, and that seeing one another would put into motion a chain of events that would eventually lead to their deaths. Of course the advice isn't all bad, it can be useful to recognize an invented distinction as an invented distinction, and thus as having a reflection in people's behavior if not the world itself, but such a distinction should not be dismissed just because it is invented.
6. Interpretation: A rose by any other name would smell as sweet – in other words no matter what you call the rose it will smell the same. So construed the saying constitutes a warning against trying to change the world by changing the way you talk about it. Certainly that seems like an absurd thing to do. It would take a special kind of craziness to think that you could change the world in that way. And yet people try to do just that all the time. For example, back when it was fashionable to support the war in Iraq and hate the French, French fries were called freedom fries by some. What is the point of this change of terminology if not to try to eliminate all connections to France, or at least pretend they aren't there. Similarly, calling the people you are fighting insurgents instead of rebels, freedom fighters, or an opposing military force looks a lot like an attempt to change the nature of the conflict by talking about it in different terms. But the facts about who you are exchanging bullets with are the same no matter what you call them.
Evaluation: Clearly the world does not change in response to how we talk about it. But people's perception of the world may. If you called honey bee barf people would probably find it less enticing. This is a point that has already been raised in the evaluation of interpretation 1. Now it may be the case that some people can easily see through these changes in language, and aren't affected by them. But not everyone is, and this interpretation encourages turning a blind eye towards them, reasoning that the facts won't change no matter which words are used. The realization that the world is not affected by word choice should instead be used to oppose those who would mislead people through clever language. When they pick their words to elicit a certain reaction we can point out that the world is the same no matter which words they use, and thus that their careful choice of words can be motivated by nothing other than the desire to mislead.
7. Interpretation: Pointing out that we are free to call the rose by other names highlights the arbitrariness of language. Why do we call a rose "rose" instead of something else? That language is arbitrary and emerges by convention has been brought up in other interpretations, but none have treated it as the main theme of the saying. Realizing that language is arbitrary may make us more open to changes in language or using language in new ways. If language is arbitrary certainly the current conventions have no special importance.
Evaluation: I can't deny that language is arbitrary. To experience the arbitrariness of language for yourself simply repeat a single word out loud until it loses all meaning and becomes simply a sound. However, seriously treating language as arbitrary can often be a hindrance, even though it is true. As was mentioned in the evaluation of interpretation 4 we can only communicate because we adhere to linguistic conventions. Thinking of language as arbitrary would probably lead us to ignore those conventions and thus to misunderstandings. Imagine if you regularly used words in ways that were slightly unusual. Then the conversations most people would have with you would revolve around trying to understand what you meant rather than about what you meant. And so it is best to ignore the arbitrariness of language except when you are explicitly recommending changes in the way we use words.
Comments Off on 2: A Rose By Any Other Name Would Smell As Sweet.
Some Thoughts About Gold
Filed under: Language — Peter @ 11:10 pm
Why does the word "gold" designate what it does? Currently the word gold is taken to designate a specific type of atom, or, more colloquially, any substance that is made up mostly of that atom. But is that what gold always meant? The word "gold" was around long before we knew about the existence of atoms. Gold was once defined by its density, its color, and its malleability. Indeed, even in modern times, most people have a relatively imprecise conception of gold (especially before they learned about atoms). Most people, I think it is safe to say, just think of gold as a rare shiny yellow metal. But let's go back to historical times when discovering the nature of gold was still a work in progress. The natural scientists of the times were aware of a number of different substances: typical gold, pyrite (fool's gold), white gold, and brass polished to look like gold. How did they manage to make a decision as to what counted as gold and what didn't? Whichever of the ordinary features of gold you pick out it is possible that some substance that we now know is not really gold will be picked out as gold by it (or that some substance that really is gold will be left out). There are other malleable metals, other yellow metals, and other alloys of the same density. Picking a combination of these features that will just pick out what we now think of as gold is hard to do. The most direct way is probably through a definition that appeals to none of the ordinary properties but rather the behavior of the metal under certain tests (namely purifying it and testing its density).
But that definition doesn't seem to have any special connection with the ordinary understanding of gold, why favor it over one of the other possibilities? Why not pick some more colloquial understanding of the term that includes pyrite or excludes white gold, but which just as determinately and objectively defines a class of materials? One answer to this, the kind of answer that David Lewis, among others, would give, is that what "gold" refers to is the natural kind that best fits the ordinary usage of the term. Sure, there are lots of definitions that more or less respect pre-theoretical intuitions about gold, but all of them, except a definition in terms of gold atoms, are unnatural, they would claim. A definition that includes both pyrite and gold, for example, is lumping together two chemically different kinds of things under one heading, and a definition that excludes white gold is drawing a division where none really exists.
Obviously this isn't an entirely uncontroversial answer because it relies on natural kinds, which not everyone agrees exist or thinks we have access to. But let's put the metaphysics aside for the moment and just pretend that natural kinds exist. The first problem with this answer to the question, even granting the existence of natural kinds, is that a definition based, for example, on the reflective properties of the substance seems to be just as natural (surely the way light is reflected is a natural division of the world), and, while it doesn't perfectly respect pre-theoretical intuitions about gold, it doesn't do that much worse than the atomic definition. Such an objection might be avoided, however, by a more complicated story about natural kinds, which makes facts about composition more fundamental and facts about reflecting light somehow secondary. Again this is a questionable move that drags in even further metaphysical commitments. But again I would say that we should just concede, for the sake of argument, that these are acceptable metaphysical commitments, since arguing metaphysics rarely gets anywhere. Still, there are other questions we can ask. Why do we divide the atoms by proton count instead of neutron count? Most elements have a characteristic number of neutrons that a majority of the atoms of that type have. So, if we instead divided up the atoms into elements by neutron number rather than proton number we would have roughly similar divisions of the world. Among these divisions there would be one that corresponds roughly to the familiar category of elemental gold. Why not say that this unfamiliar division is what gold refers to, since it too would roughly respect intuitions? Certainly there is no metaphysically acceptable way to privilege neutrons over protons for deciding what counts as a natural kind. Thus the appeal to natural kinds breaks down; there are simply too many candidates for the natural kind that might fit our intuitive understanding of "gold", and this is even more obviously the case when it comes to substances that are defined partly by structural properties (such as crystals), where there are even more candidates for natural kinds in the same region as our pre-theoretical intuitions.
On the other hand, there seems to be something undeniably appealing about the turn to natural kinds. Wouldn't there by something wrong with a category that included both gold and pyrite but nothing else? The division feels arbitrary and unnatural, and instinctively there seems to be something wrong with any position that would approve of it. Whatever "gold" might refer to surely the candidates shouldn't include such unnatural things, even if we are willing to concede that there is no immediately obvious natural kind corresponding to our pre-theoretical ideas.
What is it that strikes us as wrong about a gold-pyrite category? Some might say our intuitions about naturalness. But that just raises the question: why do we have the intuitions about naturalness that we do? And on this issue I am not inclined to be tolerant of metaphysical explanations that justify our intuitions. There are a number of well-known problems with intuition that fairly conclusively indicate that they aren't truth tracking. That doesn't mean that intuitions can be ignored, and I don't intend to ignore them, but it means that we can't explain our intuitions by positing that the world is as they portray it to be. Rather it is often the case that our intuitions serve some other purpose, that we simply dress them up by assuming that they track metaphysical facts in order to justify our use of them. But there is no real need to justify usefulness; usefulness is useful. So what is useful about our intuitions regarding naturalness? Well is the gold-pyrite category a good one? Sure it is an objective division of the world that we can precisely define, but that is not all we look for in a category. We categorize the world because those categories are useful. A first order kind of usefulness is expressiveness; a category is useful because we can refer to it in order to express facts about the world. But, in that respect, every category has roughly the same intrinsic usefulness modulo the other categories that we already employ (redundancy is not very useful). So obviously that isn't the relevant issue. However, there is also a second order of usefulness that categories can have with respect to how those categories play a role in useful theories. If the K group of properties plays a role in some theory, or better, in a number of theories, than categories that divide along the lines of the K properties are more useful to us. This is why we divide atoms by protons and take neutrons as secondary. The number of protons an atom has is extremely important when it comes to the kinds of chemical reactions it will enter into, while the number of neutrons is important much less often. Thus we divide the atoms by their number of protons because that is the division that tells us the most theoretically important facts about them.
And this explains our intuitive resistance to the gold-pyrite category: it isn't one of our pre-existing linguistic divisions, it doesn't give us any significant new expressive power, and, most importantly, it doesn't play any theoretically significant role. If, however, we did discover something interesting about the gold-pyrite category as a whole, say that it participates in some interesting category of reactions or played an important social role, then our intuitions would change. Obviously we would still think that gold and pyrite were significant categories on their own, because of our existing theoretical commitments. But the new category would also have a role to play, and thus would seem more natural. Or, at least, it should become more intuitively acceptable, if our intuitions are helping rather than hindering us, because now being able to appeal to that category is useful. Sure we could say all the same things by saying "gold or pyrite" over and over, just as we could equally well express all the facts about gold by appeal to the category "atoms with X protons and 1 neutron or atoms with X protons and 2 neutrons or …". In both cases the mental and linguistic convenience makes the division useful. (The mental convenience is especially important, because it makes the difference between being able to put irrelevant details out of mind so as to focus on what is important, and being unable to do so. Perhaps if we had unlimited mental capacity the only thing that would matter for us is expressivity, and so we would express every idea by appeal to the most primitive divisions, i.e. fundamental particles and their arrangements. But we do not have unlimited mental capacity.)
Now we can finally return to the original question. Why does "gold" designate what it does? Well originally the terms simply designated some gerrymandered, but objective, division of the world. The term existed because it was expressively useful, and since there are pressures in favor of being able to communicate people eventually came to mean the same thing by it, even though some other, altered, understanding of the term would have served them just as well. As time went on it turned out that some of the things designated by gold were rare, and hence socially important as units of value. Thus the terms altered its meaning somewhat to pick out the genuinely rare from the mere imposters (bronze, pyrite). When the discovery of the elements was made gold shifted its meaning again; tracking the scientific divisions was more important than just tracking something rare. Fortunately rarity and the scientific divisions aligned pretty well; the scientific divisions essentially ended up explaining the kinds of tests used to separate the really rare stuff from imposters (purification, density, etc) and why some substances (white gold) met those tests despite not quite looking like normal gold. And this is why gold refers to what it does: it refers to an objective division of the world that is of greatest utility, and which bears some resemblance to the pre-theoretic origins of the word.
And this theory seems to be generally true for all designating terms, not just gold. One advantage of the theory is that it allows that there can be something in the world that the term refers to, which explains how we can make discoveries that inform the way we use the term. And it also explains that reference in a way that avoids an appeal to pre-existing divisions of the world, or any other metaphysical facts, which is an advantage because language is clearly a human invention, and hence how it works can reasonably be expected to be explainable in terms of us, rather than in terms of facts that are, for the most part, independent of language.
Comments Off on Some Thoughts About Gold
The Logic Of Language
Filed under: Language,Logic — Peter @ 12:00 am
It's not hard to generate apparent paradoxes by applying logical rules to ordinary uses of language. One famous example of this is the liar, the sentence that says "this sentence is false" (which, if true, is false, and vice versa, and which thus can be neither true nor false, apparently). Another, slightly less famous, example is considering whether the present king of France is bald or not bald. Clearly everything is either bald or not-bald, but the present king of France, as a non-existent entity, can be asserted to be neither. What do such paradoxes tell us? Some have taken them to imply that ordinary language is logically inconsistent. Certainly it might be, however I don't see much evidence of such inconsistency. Inconsistency, in the kinds of logic usually adopted to determine the implications of these natural language expressions, is a problem because a single inconsistency would imply that every statement was true. But, despite these "inconsistencies", we have no trouble actually reasoning. It is not the case that, upon coming across the liar, we subsequently become convinced that every statement is true or follows from it. Indeed most people would deny that anything is true as a logical consequence of the liar. This strongly implies that, whatever is going on, language is not inconsistent.
If we don't want to simply throw our hands up and admit that language is inconsistent there are two possible ways to solve these problems. One is to hold that what is expressed logically by a sentence is more complicated than it seems. This is the solution commonly given to the linguistic dilemma posed by "the present king of France", as described by Russell. Instead of taking it to be an object to which properties might apply such constructions are taken instead to be a shorthand, expressing something like "there is a single object x such that x is the present king of France and x is bald". This solves the "paradox" by allowing both assertions that the present king of France is bald and that he is not bald to be false, because they are no longer assert something of the form Bx or ~Bx, of which one must always be true. And a similar solution could be conceivably be given for the liar, where the expression "this sentence" is taken to be a shorthand for something more logically complex. Such solutions may seem appealing initially, but they have their drawbacks. For example, consider reasoning such as "if the wall is less than 5ft high I won't get hurt, if the wall is not less than 5ft high I won't get hurt (because of some safety device), therefore, because the wall is either less than 5ft high or not less than 5ft high I won't get hurt". This reasoning appears sound, but it simply can't work if we expand the definite description "the wall" as Russell would have us, because then it wouldn't necessarily be the case that "the wall is either less than 5ft high or not less than 5ft high", as both assertions may turn out to be false if the description can apply to more than one object or to no objects. Thus to actually derive the conclusion we must also be entertaining the premise that "there is exactly one object that satisfies the definite description 'the wall'". Since we clearly don't entertain such assumptions when we reason (at least we don't consciously consider them) then our reasoning must be flawed, that even if the premises we are considering are all true the conclusion may still be false because of the premises we didn't consider. Which is to ask us to reason differently despite the obvious fact that reasoning as we do works perfectly well.
The other solution is to assume that the logical content of these sentences really is as it appears but that the logical rules of deduction we use to generate the paradoxes are defective, and that the proper rules should more closely reflect how we actually arrive at conclusions, which apparently don't give rise to contradictions. One promising way of doing that might be to admit partial truth functions. We can think of a partial truth function as an algorithm that operates on objects which, if it yields a value, yields either true or false. However there is also the possibility that the algorithm won't halt and will fail to produce a truth-value. And this does not effectively introduce a third truth value into the system for reasons that are somewhat complex, but which I can describe in a quick way as stemming from the fact that it is in principle impossible to say whether a partial truth function that hasn't produced a value will or won't produce a value at some point in the future. And thus there is no way to talk generally about the function not producing an output. (Or, in other words, the halting problem has no solution.) We could apply this to solve the "paradoxes" mentioned by simply asserting that "is a true sentence" fails to yield a result in certain cases of self-reference, and that most predicates don't yield a value when applied to non-existent objects. One way to interpret what that means, in ordinary terms, is as a failure to assert, that saying that the self-referential liar sentence is true or false doesn't really assert anything, nor does attributing properties to things that don't exist. Of course that still means that when we reason in a normal fashion that we are presupposing facts such as "it is possible to assert things of 'the wall'", but that seems like a kind of presupposition that we might actually have in mind, or might endorse our commitment to as a byproduct of actually asserting things about it.
Setting aside how we might fix the problems we encounter when we combine logic and language let us take another look at what the fact that language our reasoning using it actually works indicates. All we can say, without presupposing more than we should, is that evolution knows best. Evolution has produced in people a capability to reason effectively that allows them to correctly deduce facts about the things that they encounter. And, naturally, we can check this capacity of ours for errors by simply examining whether the deductions we make about those things are correct, since they are about things we interact with. But, obviously, evolution doesn't care about our ability to reason about fictional entities or semantical facts, so long as thinking about them doesn't interfere with our ability to reason practically. This is why I think it is a bad idea to generalize from logical laws that seem true enough, such as the law of the excluded middle. Sure the law of the excluded middle seems as certain as anything can be, since it holds in every case that we have ever encountered, and thus evolution has led to our minds incorporating it at a very low level, as, given that evolution cares only about the cases we might encounter, there is no reason its validity in other cases to matter in that respect. But why assume, given those facts, that it must hold for non-existent entities as well? Certainly we can't imagine them in any way except as obeying the law of excluded middle, but that could be simply because of limits on our imagination when thinking about what is not the case. Indeed I can't even think of a way to settle the matter, even in principle, because given that non-existent things don't exist there is not way to check. And the same holds for semantic facts in the context of self-referential sentences, because there is no way to check the liar sentence to see whether it is really true or not. Indeed this might even be an argument that we should leave such cases complete aside, after all the fact that we can't confirm any possibilities regarding them strongly implies that what we say in those cases doesn't really matter in any significant sense, and thus we can safely ignore them, so long as we firmly resolve to also ignore any similar cases in the future that threaten to give rise to logical paradoxes in language.
So what I am saying then is that, if we must pick some way to deal with such cases, that the choice we make is, to a large extent, arbitrary, so long as it doesn't interfere with how reason works in normal cases. Which is why I lean towards treating our predicates as partial truth functions, because our normal reasoning is recovered under the simple assumption that those predicates actually have values in the cases under consideration. But no matter how we decide to deal with these cases, or not deal with them, I think there is one position we are certainly justified in resisting, namely the idea that language is in need of repair because of these apparent paradoxes. To endorse this view is seemingly to prefer some particular logic over language, and thus to think that language is deficient so far as it does not conform to that logic. But I think it is easier to argue the opposite, that language and our reasoning with it is extremely productive when it comes to deducing conclusions about the real world (versus artificial mathematical situations), and thus that as far as that logic isn't a satisfactory model for language and linguistic reasoning, given the contradictions that it taking it as such would give rise to, that it is deficient. Because, while simple, logic is also unnatural and lacks expressive power compared to natural language. Since the claimed inconsistency in natural language doesn't actually trouble us there is no need to give up its expressive power for a solution to what is essentially a non-problem.
Comments Off on The Logic Of Language
What Language Is
Language is essentially a form of mind-control. Which is not to say that we need to deafen ourselves or risk being dominated by some speaker, because all perception is a form of mind control, in a way. Our mental state at one moment is determined by a combination of our previous mental state and our perceptions. And so to the extent that our mental states are influenced by our perceptions they are controlling our minds. Now we might argue that perception is less influential than our previous mental states, but whether it is has no bearing on the fact that perception is a way in which the external world exerts some control over our minds. In most cases of perception this influence is restricted to the "lower" levels of the mind, in the sense that perceptions are conceptualized and then those conceptualizations lead to ideas and then onwards to further and more abstract conclusions. For example, if we are exposed to the perception of a car coming at us our minds will first conceptualize that perception so that we understand it as a car that is headed towards us. And this in turn will lead to the idea that the car might hit us, which prompts the further idea that we should get out of the way. (In an actual situation of this sort our reflexes would result in us actually getting out the way before this process has time to come to its conclusion, and so we may only fully realize that we had to get out of the way after we have already done so.) Thus the perceptions themselves are some mental distance away (to speak metaphorically) from what we might call the conceptual component of the mind and thus their influence on it is reduced. Language is, I claim, a way to get around that distance; when a speaker of the language is exposed to a statement in that language in perception it is immediately transformed into thoughts, bypassing the need for those thoughts to be generated either in response to perceptions or by the thinker's own thoughts. For example, using language we can assert "there are 10 birds in the cage" and immediately prompt that thought. Without language we simply have to present the cage and the birds in it and hope that the person being exposed to them counts them at some point.
Because language is a way of influencing the other people's ideas themselves it does not have to restrict itself to just assertions about the way things are, while perceptions (that aren't linguistic in any way) do. Each perception simply presents the world as a certain way, if you see a red cloth then the perception is presenting the world as containing a red cloth in front of you. Language can, of course, do the same. Every perception has some thought about the world being a certain way that it tends to prompt (although not every perception is reflected upon), and so language can prompt that same thought (assuming that the language is completely expressive, such that every thought can be expressed in language), in this case the sentence "there is a red cloth in front of you" would be the equivalent. Language also has the potential to make assertions about the world being a certain way that are not supported by experience, and could possibly never be fully supported by experience ("the Eiffel tower is tall" if you have never been to Paris and "there are no unicorns" are examples of this) but this is still language playing basically the same role as perception, leading to thoughts about the world being a certain way.
But language can do more than this. Not only can language influence what we are thinking about but it can also influence how we think as well. Consider the number of linguistic structures that serve primarily to call attention to some feature of the statement being made. If we say "it is the case that there is a red cloth in front of you" we make the same assertions about what is the case as when we say that "there is a red cloth in front of you". But this does not mean that the two sentences are equivalent, that one can take the place of the other in all contexts. What is different about the first is that it calls attention to the fact that the world is a certain way, and away from the content (the red cloth), where our attention is usually directed. A similar effect is at work when we say "this painting is by Picasso", with an emphasis on the this. Such a sentence directs our attention to which painting is the Picasso and away from the fact of the painting being a Picasso, and is thus a sentence we might utter when someone is confused about which painting is the Picasso and we are trying to call their attention to their mistake. In both these cases the difference between the two sentences is not the content of the thoughts they bring to mind, but rather the thoughts that they will tend to prompt subsequently (the subsequent thoughts being influenced by what facts our attention is focused on). A similar phenomenon occurs in what is called the emotive use of language. In the emotive use of language certain words are used that the listener has an automatic emotional reaction to. When used in conjunction with a statement expressing the way things are we exploit that fact that the emotional reaction to those words will influence the subsequent thoughts that result from thinking about that state of affairs. Specifically, if we use a word with a negative emotional connotation then we are hoping that the listener's negative opinion of that word will influence their thoughts about that state of affairs such that they come to have a negative opinion about them as well. (A more complicated example of this at work is when a speaker intentionally uses an offensive word, which prompts a negative opinion of the speaker, which in turn prompts adopting attitudes opposite of those expressed by the speaker, and so the speaker may endorse a view contrary to the one they want the listener to come to adopt in order to exploit this phenomenon.)
Allow me now to digress briefly and illustrate how to use this analysis of language by applying it to Searle's example of the captured solider who utters a sentence in German that expresses something completely irrelevant in German to convince his Italian captors that he is a German soldier. Obviously this may result in the Italian soldiers coming to believe that he is a German soldier, which is his intent. However, this is not an example of language use because it does not have a direct influence on the thoughts of the Italian captors. Rather it presents them with a perception, a man speaking a sentence of unknown meaning in German, from which they may or may not conclude that he is a German soldier. Indeed the fact that they are not necessarily led to entertain this thought demonstrates that it is not language, because if we were to assert that he was a German soldier in Italian they would be forced to consider that fact, whether or not they decide to endorse it.
Now this feature of language, its ability to influence how we think, receives little attention. Indeed the vast majority of analytic philosophical thought about language focuses on how it describes the world being one way or another and in how those descriptions can be transmitted from one person to another such that the second person ends up intentionally directed at the same state of affairs as the first. This is, perhaps, because they have seemed to be the most "mysterious" features of language. But their mystery arises from primarily a misconception about language, that a word or sentence designates the same thing for all speakers of the language. Thus non-physical senses, or some replacement for them, have to be invoked so that there is some singular structure that all speakers of the language connect to, which can be appealed to so as to explain the constancy of language. However, I see no problem in denying this constancy and allowing that words simply mean similar things to speakers of the language (and not exactly the same thing), which allows the explanation of the ability of language to refer to states of affairs to reduce in a relatively simple way to intentionality. On the other hand, there is some mystery regarding how our thinking is influenced by language in the ways I have described here. In this case though it is not the underlying mechanism that is in question, we can assume it has something to do with the way the brain is wired. But it remains to describe and categorize the ways in which our thinking is influenced by language, which is interesting in its own right and may even illuminate to some extent how the underlying physical mechanism works.
Comments Off on What Language Is
Archives Select Month July 2009 (1) June 2009 (1) May 2009 (3) April 2009 (2) February 2009 (1) January 2009 (1) October 2008 (4) September 2008 (6) August 2008 (1) July 2008 (8) June 2008 (1) May 2008 (1) March 2008 (4) December 2007 (18) November 2007 (31) October 2007 (31) September 2007 (30) August 2007 (31) July 2007 (31) June 2007 (30) May 2007 (31) April 2007 (30) March 2007 (31) February 2007 (28) January 2007 (31) December 2006 (30) November 2006 (30) October 2006 (31) September 2006 (31) August 2006 (31) July 2006 (38) June 2006 (32) May 2006 (24) April 2006 (2)
Beginning Philosophy
Cutting Edge Philosophy
General Philosophy
The Philosophy of
Ask Philosophers
Critical Thinking On The Web
Ephilosopher
Philosophy Papers Online
Philosophy Talk
The Philosopher's Zone
Philosophy Blogs
A Brood Comb
Certain Doubts
Philosophers' Carnival
Philosophy For Each Day
Philosophy from the Left Coast
RobinFaichney.org
The Dead Hobo Society
Thoughts Arguments and Rants


text:
Published on EnergyTrend (https://www.energytrend.com/news/20170512-11686.html)
home > Shell Headquarters in Thailand Covered by Solar Frontier's Solar Panels
Shell Headquarters in Thailand Covered by Solar Frontier's Solar Panels
Solar Frontier K.K. has completed installation of its CIS thin-film solar panels at two buildings at the Shell head-quarters in Thailand. The project was constructed by Energy Pro Corporation Ltd., a Thai solar power EPC specialist that has worked with Solar Frontier on multiple other projects.
Solar Frontier's CIS thin-film solar panels are 119.68 kW in size and are installed on two rooftops of Shell House HQ in Bangkok. Expected annual power generation is 179,479 kWh and all power generated will be for self-consumption, leading to an expected level of CO2 reduction of 104 tons over the first year.
Mr. Asada Harinsuit, Chairman, The Shell Companies of Thailand, and Vice President, Retail East said, "This initiative follows from a similar programme last year where we had solar panels installed on the roofs of two of our Shell retail stations in Thailand. We see our efforts here as helping to contribute to Thailand's renewable energy goals as well as to reducing Shell's CO2 levels across our organisation."
Yuichi Kuroda, Executive Officer of Solar Frontier commented, "We are pleased to have our CIS thin-film panels chosen by Shell Thailand for their HQ buildings. As Solar Frontier's premium CIS thin-film solar panels have been designed with real world conditions in mind, they are a reliable solution year-round to help achieve CO2 reduction, promote green energy and save electricity."
Source URL: https://www.energytrend.com/news/20170512-11686.html

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


I think on Tuesday you can visit the following site to check out another one.
That's a professional photo there. And all the vital info too.
long. Also momma is doing just fine. We just got home, but I wanted to get these out..
so will write more later.
Pic one is mom and Logan, pic two is with auntie Em.


KHAPZORY 175 mg is a sterile lyophilized powder consisting of 175 mg levoleucovorin, 29.6 mg sodium hydroxide, and 105 mg mannitol in each vial. Additional sodium hydroxide and/or hydrochloric acid may be used to adjust the pH during manufacture. It is intended for intravenous administration after reconstitution with 3.6 mL of sterile 0.9% Sodium Chloride Injection, USP [See DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION].
KHAPZORY 300 mg is a sterile lyophilized powder consisting of 300 mg levoleucovorin, 50.7 mg sodium hydroxide, and 180 mg mannitol in each vial. Additional sodium hydroxide and/or hydrochloric acid may be used to adjust the pH during manufacture. It is intended for intravenous administration after reconstitution with 6.2 mL of sterile 0.9% Sodium Chloride Injection, USP [See DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION].
The recommended dosage for KHAPZORY is based on a methotrexate dose of 12 grams/m² administered as intravenous infusion over 4 hours in adult and pediatric patients. Twenty-four hours after starting the methotrexate infusion, initiate KHAPZORY at a dose of 7.5 mg (approximately 5 mg/m²) as an intravenous infusion every 6 hours.
Normal methotrexate elimination Serum methotrexate level approximately 10 micromolar at 24 hours after administration, 1 micromolar at 48 hours, and less than 0.2 micromolar at 72 hours. Administer 7.5 mg by intravenous infusion every 6 hours for 60 hours (10 doses starting at 24 hours after start of methotrexate infusion).
Delayed late methotrexate elimination Serum methotrexate level remaining above 0.2 micromolar at 72 hours, and more than 0.05 micromolar at 96 hours after administration. Continue 7.5 mg by intravenous infusion every 6 hours, until methotrexate level is less than 0.05 micromolar.
100% or greater increase in serum creatinine level at 24 hours after methotrexate administration (e.g., an increase from 0.5 mg/dL to a level of 1 mg/dL or more). Administer 75 mg by intravenous infusion every 3 hours until methotrexate level is less than 1 micromolar; then 7.5 mg by intravenous infusion every 3 hours until methotrexate level is less than 0.05 micromolar.
*These patients are likely to develop reversible renal failure. In addition to appropriate KHAPZORY therapy, continuing hydration and urinary alkalinization, and monitoring of fluid and electrolyte status, until the serum methotrexate level has fallen to below 0.05 micromolar and the renal failure has resolved.
Start KHAPZORY in adult and pediatric patients as soon as possible after an overdosage of methotrexate or within 24 hours of methotrexate administration when methotrexate elimination is impaired. As the time interval between methotrexate administration and KHAPZORY increases, the effectiveness of KHAPZORY to diminish methotrexate toxicity may decrease. Administer KHAPZORY 7.5 mg (approximately 5 mg/m²) as an intravenous infusion every 6 hours until the serum methotrexate level is less than 5 x 10-8 M (0.05 micromolar).
175 mg vial - NDC 68152-112-01.
300 mg vial - NDC 68152-114-01.
Table 2 presents the frequency of adverse reactions which occurred during the administration of 58 courses of high-dose methotrexate 12 grams/m² followed by levoleucovorin rescue, for osteosarcoma, in 16 patients, ages 6-21 years. Most patients received levoleucovorin 7.5 mg every 6 hours for 60 hours or longer, beginning 24 hours after completion of methotrexate administration.
Table 3 presents the frequency of adverse reactions which occurred in 2 arms of a randomized trial conducted by the North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. The trial failed to show superior overall survival with fluorouracil + levoleucovorin compared to fluorouracil + d,l-leucovorin. Patients were randomized to fluorouracil 370 mg/m² intravenously and levoleucovorin 100 mg/m² intravenously, both daily for 5 days, or to fluorouracil 370 mg/m² intravenously and d,l-leucovorin 200 mg/m² intravenously, both daily for 5 days. Treatment was repeated week 4 and week 8, then every 5 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Leucovorin products increase the toxicity of fluorouracil [see WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS].
Leucovorin products increase the toxicities of fluorouracil [see DRUG INTERACTIONS]. Gastrointestinal toxicities, including stomatitis and diarrhea, occur more commonly and may be of greater severity and of prolonged duration. Deaths from severe enterocolitis, diarrhea, and dehydration have occurred in elderly patients receiving weekly d,l-leucovorin and fluorouracil. Do not initiate or continue therapy with KHAPZORY and fluorouracil in patients with symptoms of gastrointestinal toxicity until those symptoms have resolved. Monitor patients with diarrhea until it has resolved as rapid deterioration leading to death can occur.
The safety and effectiveness of KHAPZORY have been established in pediatric patients for rescue after high-dose methotrexate therapy in osteosarcoma and diminishing the toxicity associated with overdosage of folic acid antagonists or impaired methotrexate elimination. Use of levoleucovorin in pediatric patients is supported by open-label clinical trial data in 16 pediatric patients 6 years of age and older, with additional supporting evidence from literature [see Clinical Studies].
In the NCCTG clinical trial of levoleucovorin in combination with fluorouracil in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer, adverse reactions were consistent with fluorouracil related toxicity and were similar for patients age 65 years and older and patients younger than 65 [see Clinical Studies].
KHAPZORY is contraindicated in patients who have had severe hypersensitivity to leucovorin products, folic acid, or folinic acid [see ADVERSE REACTIONS].
Levoleucovorin enhances the therapeutic and toxic effects of fluorouracil. Fluorouracil is metabolized to 5-fluoro-2'- deoxyuridine-5'-monophosphate (FdUMP), which binds to and inhibits thymidylate synthase (an enzyme important in DNA repair and replication). Levoleucovorin is converted to another reduced folate, 5,10-methylenetetrahydrofolate, which then acts to stabilize the binding of FdUMP to thymidylate synthase, thereby enhancing the inhibition of thymidylate synthase.
A published cross study comparison showed that the mean dose-normalized steady-state plasma concentrations for both levoleucovorin and 5-methyl-THF were comparable whether fluorouracil (370 mg/m²/day IV bolus) was administered in combination with levoleucovorin (250 mg/m² and 1000 mg/m² as a continuous IV infusion for 5.5 days, N=9) or in combination with d,l-leucovorin (500 mg/m² as a continuous IV infusion for 5.5 days, N=6).
The efficacy of levoleucovorin rescue following high-dose methotrexate were evaluated in 16 patients, ages 6-21 years, who received 58 courses of chemotherapy for osteogenic sarcoma. High-dose methotrexate was one component of several different combination chemotherapy regimens evaluated across several trials. Methotrexate 12 g/m² IV over 4 hours was administered to 13 patients, who received levoleucovorin 7.5 mg every 6 hours for 60 hours or longer beginning 24 hours after completion of methotrexate. Three patients received methotrexate 12.5 g/m² IV over 6 hours, followed by levoleucovorin 7.5 mg every 3 hours for 18 doses beginning 12 hours after completion of methotrexate. The mean number of levoleucovorin doses per course was 18.2 and the mean total dose per course was 350 mg. The efficacy of levoleucovorin rescue following high-dose methotrexate was based on adverse reaction profile [see ADVERSE REACTIONS].
In a randomized clinical study conducted by the Mayo Clinic and the North Central Cancer Treatment Group (Mayo/NCCTG) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer comparing d,l-leucovorin (LV) 200 mg/m² and fluorouracil 370 mg/m² versus LV 20 mg/m² and fluorouracil 425 mg/m² versus fluorouracil 500 mg/m², with all drugs administered by intravenous infusion daily for 5 days every 28 to 35 days, response rates were 26% (p=0.04 versus fluorouracil alone), 43% (p=0.001 versus fluorouracil alone), and 10%, respectively. Respective median survival times were 12.2 months (p=0.037), 12 months (p=0.050), and 7.7 months. The low dose LV regimen was associated with a statistically significant improvement in weight gain of more than 5%, relief of symptoms, and improvement in performance status. The high dose LV regimen was associated with a statistically significant improvement in performance status and trended toward improvement in weight gain and in relief of symptoms but these were not statistically significant.
In a second Mayo/NCCTG randomized clinical study the fluorouracil alone arm was replaced by sequentially administered methotrexate (MTX), fluorouracil, and LV. Response rates with LV 200 mg/m² and fluorouracil 370 mg/m² versus LV 20 mg/m² and fluorouracil 425 mg/m² versus sequential MTX and fluorouracil and LV were 31% (p≤0.01), 42% (p≤0.01), and 14%, respectively. Respective median survival times were 12.7 months (p≤0.04), 12.7 months (p≤0.01), and 8.4 months. There was no statistically significant difference in weight gain of more than 5% or in improvement in performance status between the treatment arms.
A randomized controlled trial conducted by the NCCTG in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer failed to show superiority of a regimen of fluorouracil + levoleucovorin to fluorouracil + d,l-leucovorin in overall survival. Patients were randomized to fluorouracil 370 mg/m² intravenously and levoleucovorin 100 mg/m² intravenously, both daily for 5 days, or to fluorouracil 370 mg/m² intravenously and d,l-leucovorin 200 mg/m² intravenously, both daily for 5 days. Treatment was repeated week 4 and week 8, then every 5 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.


Hell Yeah!: It's been a bad week..
It's been a bad week..
The explosion in the transformer yard across the street from the facility has caused IPs safety rating to be degraded from green to white. Not to mention it scared the crap out of a lot of people already on edge about Indian Point's safety.
Local Congressman John Hall, Westchester's County Executive Andy Spano and a host of other politicians renew their calls for independent safety assessments and for outright closure of the plant.
Noreen O'Donnell writes a common-sense piece in the Journal News, articulating the gut-level fear felt by most of the people who live in the shadow of that facility.
Leaks, shutdowns, terrorism, and now explosions. Scary stuff when you're talking nuke plant.
But we must realize that either choice - shutting down, or allowing re-licensing of IP - is not to be made lightly. A thousand good jobs, megawatts that would need replacing, huge impact on the local economy - these are all huge considerations. While the dangers of radioactivity weigh in as well.
So here's what I'm effectively being asked to decide. Would I prefer cheap electricity from a life-threatening plant that could be minutes away from melting down? Or spiked unemployment, loss of millions of dollars in the local economy and a drastically higher electric bill - but I'm alive?
I'm a regular joe citizen of this area, I've lived my whole life within Indian Point's shadow, and that's the choice I'm being asked to make. And I do not know a thing about what distinguishes a safe nuclear facility from a dangerous one. But I still have to choose based on what little comprehensible information I have available to me.
Entergy and ren ask me to trust the tireless, wholesome, well intentioned scientists of Entergy and the NRC, the benevolent fire-keeping sorcerer-owners of Gaia's fire.
Riverkeeper and my local leaders call them dangerous, incompetent, venal liars who will let everyone rot so they can become ever richer.
So I sit here worrying about my choices, as cries are raised for an independent review of the plant.
It's absolutely true that nobody trusts the NRC, and on the other side, nobody who supports the plant will trust a study conducted by a team of Indian Point assassins.
And there's the more disturbing question: why does Entergy oppose an independent review of the facility? If there's nothing to hide, what are they hiding?
So here's what I think we should do. call on our government - and Entergy - to remove the politics from the equation, and let us take a real look at what's hot in Buchanan.
Hire a FOREIGN organization with NO vested interest in the outcome. Give them full authority to conduct a thorough and thoroughly independent study. Bring in scientists from another nuclear country like France, Germany or Norway to conduct this independent assessment, and make the conclusions a matter of public record. Keep it honest by making it contractual that none of the participants can work for Entergy or a related company at any time in the future. And if that is not honored, allow for severe, multi-million dollar fines. This shouldn't be much of an issue for say a German engineer. There's plenty of work for them in their own countries.
We are not capable of doing this on our own. IP can't get a fair trial in a local court, so let's change the venue, or at least the place the jury comes from.
Does anybody have any compelling reason why this is a bad idea?
If so, I'd love to hear it, and I'm sure the two or three other readers of this obscure message board would as well.
John Hall will be holding a town meeting tomorrow evening at 7pm (Monday, April 9th) at the Howland Cultural Center on Main Street in Beacon. The subject will be - you guessed it - energy. I wonder if Vincent Ferro will be there. Just in case, I'll bring the "Excommunicate Rudy" signs - in case he forgot his.
In "protest space" your post is reasonable.... hell,... eloquent even.
However , the two phrases "Life Threatening" and "Minutes from Melting" are accepted concepts only within protest space.
In reality, they are untrue.
Let's skip my 500 word tome on why. (unless you want me to provide it).
So.... the old dual personality every activist is forced to inhabit...... over-reacting , carefully nurtured fear, (to move the uncommitted), and then the mood swings back to compassion for the real damage your position would cause, were it to be accepted, and acted upon.
Know this: the fact you hear anything about Indian Point, is simply that its a media hot button. It gets about 89,000 hits on a usual google day.
Don't let your existence be steered by google hits. (unless you are selling something).
If you ARE selling a product, (perhaps a "close Indian Point" pre-cooked TV dinner) then please don't appeal to us as neighbors. That would be deceptive, and manipulative huckstering, wouldn't it?
As a person who has lived exactly 9/10 of a mile downwind from the place for decades, let me say that I'm annoyed at the thing, tired of the exaggeration, but well schooled in what to fear.
I fear blackouts, brownouts, declining demographics, Mexicanization, burnt-out houses, and a third world on the Hudson, a lot more than I fear anything from Indian Point.
I think most other people, unprompted, more or less concur.
where are these thoughtful locals who have weighed the risks and decided that they, like you, trust an energy producing megacorp at its word, and feel totally secure as they read their Bible's at night by light benevolently provided by IP?
As I said above, I was born and raised 20-odd miles from Indian Point. It's been part of my consciousness my whole life.
Noreen O'Donnell's piece articulates a point almost every person I know from Westchester, Putnam and Dutchess would agree with: everyone goes about their lives knowing that the "INDIAN POINT EXPLOSION" text message may come at any moment. The REAL explosion. The one that causes those sirens they're always testing for go off for real. That mean crushed KI pills down baby's throat. That mean every-man-for-himself, head for the hills, and probably die in a traffic jam on the Taconic as millions of others flee.
That fear is real, whether it is warranted or not. And it is widespread.
But it's kept in check by the same mental mechanism that keeps commuters on trains into Manhattan every day.
Commuters know that a dirty bomb could detonate at any moment in Manhattan, but the trains fill up for that ride every day.
But mass hysteria is one unscheduled siren screwup away, and you know it.
"That'll never happen here" is a hell of a mental shield, and Indian Point operates almost entirely on that back-of-mind principle.
But times have changed, and that power shift in DC was something Entergy should have been prepared for.
So, the last election brought Indian Point from the backs of minds to the forefront, and we are approaching a time of reckoning, where the opposing force - the anti-Nuke/IPEC lobby is becoming powerful enough to make real trouble for Entergy.
And the anti-nuke powers will shut down Indian Point gleefully, electricity, economy, jobs be damned.
I believe what I propose is the only way to close the book on the debate.
Don't underestimate the power of a motivated population. Every politician in America will turn on Entergy if they believe their electorate will punish them if they fail to. This is something you also know.
Bring in an agnostic review team and put the issue to bed.
As far as the product I'm selling: funny you should mention TV dinners. I'd like to take this moment to introduce you to my line of "Indian Point `Nuke n' Run` Suppers". There's the "Chicken Buchanan Meltdown Meal". A delightful repast of stuffed chicken and parmesan cheese with succotash, finished with Baked Alaska. Then there's the "Indian Point Damaged Dome Breakfast": three "nuclear" hot eggs served in their cracked shells, crisped bacon and well done toast with "radioactive" green apple jelly oozing from a red and white "chimney" tube.
Available everywhere! Try one today!
They are at work, or at home, not posting, not agitating, not editorializing, simply paying their utility bills, and wishing maniacs like you & me would shut up and go away.
I often go back to the petitions of 2001-2002. Ross Weale's petition signed up 8000 antis. My petition signed up just over 13,000 pro-nukes.
Add 'em up. that's about 21,000 who give a damn, either way. (not counting media, and paid flacks).
What's the local population? 20 million?
That gives about 19,979,000 truly unconcerned, truly uncommitted souls, the vast majority hereabouts.
I think the truth may hover somewhere around this concept, although I don't put it out there as gospel.
You must hang with very committed activist people, because definitely not "almost every person I know" feels the way you do.
Look around, and ask some strangers on the train, and it will go one of two ways. If you ask them in such a way that they feel a wrong answer will condemn them to social ridicule as a Bushite, they will sing the reconstructionist line, just out of rightful fear of Democratic Party Brownshirtism. If you ask them when their guard is down, so they say what they really feel, they will admit it doesn't matter to them, so long as their taxes stay reasonable, and no blackouts happen.
As far as altruistic corporations paving our streets with silk & satin for us, try paving those streets without them, by direct social action. You'll give up & go back to college after about 6 months, I'll warrant.
As far as your TV dinners. They sound delicious, but my wife is a CIA grad, and would probably brain me if I tried 'em.
Its great getting back in the swing like this. Thanks a lot!There's a special connection every generation feels with the events that acted to trap them in their eventual life-course. You know.... "It was the best of times.... It was the worst of times". I see clearly how the seminal social awakenings of the rock'n'roll generation were "much more significant" than whatever passed for progress in the 1980's or the 1990's. I'm wrong of course. To those who turned 21 in 1991, the old fart crapola that shines so bright for me, & McCartney, & Bob Dylan is faded almost to gray, and their own awakening history seems epochal. Who is right? Everybody is right, inside his/her own reference frame, peer group, and family. I do know one thing though. Collectively, the wisdom emerges from individual choices, all made in secret, adding up in the end to a new politics, a new mandate hardly understood at all by those seeking office.The ones seeking office are the only ones forced to take these decisions out of the oven before they are fully cooked. The rest of us get to waffle, change, evolve, seek the best outcome, and never commit. Once the hopeful Pol commits, he/she is dead meat, progress-wise. To get those votes, you have to alienate about 49% of the current wisdom, and it sets up your own downfall, usually two election cycles later. So if you think you feel an epochal seachange making the earth move beneath us, sit down a while, let it pass, and you will recognize it as nothing more than the ripening of your own youth. Right after ripe, is when the apple falls off the tree, and a passing horse eats it. Happens every time. Once the horse eats it, you know what happens after that!
Don't blame me - I'm not responsible for turning fear into precious political capital. Unlike many of my elected leaders - local and national - I don't start or finish my every utterance with "since the attacks of 9/11".
I didn't run on a platform of "I'm strong on defense while my opponent wants to sing Dance With Me to Kim Jong Il"
But what I can say is that those who created that fear-environment did it largely to obscure their dirty deeds, and that they lack the skill to control something so primal.
They can't say "fear terrorists bombing NYC, but don't fear terrorsts bombing Buchanan" and have the people nod quietly in agreement and get back to worrying about Manhattan.
I did not let that cat out of that bag.
And frankly. I'm tired of seeing my country's wealth and weal squandered so an obscenely wealthy few can get even richer on my dime. I resent the shifted tax burden, how the yoke was removed from corporations and placed on the shoulders of the people who can't afford clever accountants to itemize for them.
I have no issues with wealth, but I do have issues with anybody stealing it from the public trust (with devices such as multibillion dollar no-bid contracts) and lying to get it (tamiflu vs. relenza).
The economic disparity that is created when this goes unchecked is precisely what causes what you call the "Mexicanization" of the Hudson Valley. Town after town of cafes, galleries and antiques stores teeming with workers who can't afford to live in the towns they work in.
The factories move overseas and our leaders call it progress, while we debate caps on H1B visas.
So, let's not do more damage to our local economy than we already have with our years of brainlessly electing handsome, charismatic criminals with perfect smiles.
Bring in an outside auditor to comb through Indian Point. Put everyone's mind to rest.
What could possibly be simpler? And as I said in my original post - what possible issue could there be with something like that?
Because the question that lingers is still, if there's nothing to hide, why are they hiding nothing?
Clearly you didn't read past the headline or you'd probably be thanking me, not taking pointless cheap shots.
If you bothered to read what I wrrote, you would see that I do NOT want a Congressional hit-team to close IP. But I think that's what will happen if Entergy doesn't start to take the shift in public perception that happens when your enemy moves from shotgun to the driver's seat and starts making noise that starts getting heard by the people.
But this is America, and generations of brave men and women fought and died to preserve your right to insult me with no good reason.
My food? My family gets our vegetables from the farm on 9D. It's cheaper than the store, and there's no question of how it's grown.
Meat comes from Trader Joes in Danbury. It's grass-fed, no hormones and it's the same price as the stuff in Key Food on Main St., or if there's a good deal at the Farmers Market at the train station on Sunday, it comes from someone local.
That's because I DO know where other people's food comes from.
Where's your food come from?
You yourself have said it, above, Bren.
That's why they are hiding nothing.
Take a look at those 2 sentences again, and begin to see where the "problem" is.
The "problem" (if there is one) therefore must be in you.
I'm not exactly Mr. Spock, but that seems logical to me.
"If there's nothing to hide, what are they hiding?"
is a conditional statement (IF-THEN).
And "that's why they are hiding nothing" is an assertion that they are hiding "nothing". Are we going to have to define "nothing"?
As in "Junior, what are you doing?" "Nothing, mom" is the reply as he finishes emptying the ammonia bottle into the bucket of bleach.
Is indian point pouring ammonia into bleach?
By the way, you see the price of uranium went from $95/lb to $113/lb between the last 2 trading sessions? That's a hell of a jump.
Cameco says Cigar Lake won't be back online until 2010 at the earliest. And that's the optimists. The Saudi Arabia of uranium just stopped pumping out crude for the next 3+ years.
Hope they can keep my lights on!
dont blame me, you started it.
I asked my minister whether God loved me, and he said yes. But I had heard that he had a vested interest in making me think that God loved me, so I disbelieved him, and asked my wife. She said yes, God loved me, but because I had scolded her about credit card overuse, she apparently had a vested interest in my believing this, so I disbelieved her, and decided I needed an independent assessment of whether God loved me. Since I was incapable of discerning whether God loved me alone, I turned to my minister, and my wife, and my congressman, John Hall, and asked them if they could collectively tell me whether God loved me, in a more credible way than the agendized and non-credible answers I had gotten up until then. Mr. Hall said yes, he had a bill already tabled in congress to that effect, and that as soon as he got it out of committee, passed in 2 houses, and past Bush's veto, he would gather my minister and 20 other ministers, and my wife and 20 other people's wives, and spend $20 million dollars doing a totally independent assessment of God's love for me, and then sit down to write up a 5000 page report telling me whether or not God loved me. Right in the middle of this God came down to earth, and entered the inner regions of my brain, curing me of my horrible doubts, my self-induced and very prideful skepticism, and my nitpicking penchant for not listening to what people were telling me. I knew at that moment that God loved me, and that I no longer needed the $20 million team effort Mr. Hall had set up to investigate the issue. But Hall was not in his office when I called to tell him I no longer needed his assistance.So Hall's effort went forward, Independently Assessing God's Love for little old me, and they mailed me the report. I read it very carefully, but unfortunately, I didn't believe it. Go figure!
If all the writers, actors, artists, and producers ruined by the House Un-American Activities Committee of Senator Joseph McCarthy were truly innocent of wrongdoing, then what did they have to hide? A simple chance for them to clear their names in public with the whole world watching on TV was actually a GREAT OPPORTUNITY for them to demonstate what loyal Americans they really were.
If it walks like a pogrom, and quacks like a witch hunt, and flaps its wings like a brownshirt on Krystalnacht, then very likely what you have here, is a crypto-fascist Duck, with artficially green-dyed wings.
Four caucasian undercover police officers accost an African American bridegroom after his bachelor party at 4:00 A.M.,and suggest he stop, throw up his hands, and submit to them. If he truly has nothing to hide, what would be the problem with simply complying with these men, emptying his pockets, lying face down on the winter pavement, and trusting in the wisdom of angry strangers, such as it might be, to determine his fate?... (Men who admittedly have "Deep Seated Fears" about African Americans but to them, just as to TJN reporter Nora O'Donnell, those fears, justified or not, SEEM real). The bridegroom, not honoring or catering to the crippling and incapacitating inner fears and delusions in those who accost him, assumes that this is the United States of America, and puts his car in gear, to drive home to his family. He is shot 50 times.
WHAT WAS IT, THAT HE WAS TRYING TO HIDE?
What was it, he was trying to protect?
After all,.... all the "bad things" the caucasian officers had heard time after time, about African American men, even if exaggerated, spun up, or even dead wrong NEVERTHELESS had filled their inner beings with great dread, so that when an African American is asked for an independent assessment of his right to go about his own business unobstructed, he had better comply with the demands of the fearful (but wrong) majority --IF HE KNOWS WHATS GOOD FOR HIM-- because the fear of the few, is worth much much more than the rights of the many.
Those in opposition to Indian Point have declared their own inner feelings to be a god. They worship this false god, and wish the rest of the world to be baptized in fear, along with themselves. They fend off reason, reality, good sense, and humanitarian best interest, by declaring their god-their fear to be SUCH A POWERFUL FEAR- as to be worth downgrading everybody's existence , in order to honor it. They harrass, obstruct, denigrate and misrepresent the fruitful, honorable, honest and expert efforts of others to engage in normal life, and go about their normal businesses, as having HUGE AND URGENT EVIL CONSEQUENCES attached to them, when in truth they do not. The rest of us realize these warnings are without basis. They do not.They deem these delusions to be sacred.Thus they also worship the children of their false fear-god, their delusions. In their delusions, all of reality will soon end, in a huge devastating scene of cataclysmic destruction. THIS IS A NON BIBLICAL BIBLE TALE. It is a technophobic Gilgamesh flood. It is a dragon, spouting atomic fire from its lizard's mouth. It is a point of cult obeisance, and in bowing together, they make community. Within their cult of cataclysm, they pose as the righteous, and cast modern society as Gomorrah. They confusedly interchange their delusion with any reality they choose, should it suit them, and are willing to harrass, assault, accuse, demean, oppose, and sadden any other citizen, or group of citizens, in this delusional cult pursuit.They have been manipulated by John Hall, into electing him, and now Mr. Hall is quietly trying to detach himself from the most embarrassing implications of this wedding with idiots. He may not escape unscathed, but the rest of us must. Our right to live as full lives as we are capable of, is a much deeper right, than the "right" (actually not a right at all) to entertain cult delusions, and thus assault the rest of humanity. Sixty million people died in WWII to declare this bogus , delusive "right" to be a great evil, far worse than anything it promises to cure. I see the sickness, and I pity its victims, without hate. However, I stand as the permanent public cure, as long as my powers for truth should remain, and will burst their delusive bubble anytime it needs lancing.
Nice talkin' to ya, Bren !
To compare Indian Point's safety to God's Love is frightening.
God's love can not be proven empirically. In fact, neither God nor Love can be empirically proven. A room full of people would give a room full of different definitions for both.
On the other hand, the safety of a facility that produces anything from widgets to heat from nuclear reactions CAN be proven.
$20million is a pittance compared to most of the stuff our tax dollars get wasted on. Clearly this isn't a question of money.
So what's the problem? Get started!
Oh me of little faith?
Please, give me something I can use!
The McCarthy hearing questions had no right answers.
ISAs conducted by a green-winged ducks or government/industry quacks won't have any right answers either.
An ISA conducted by Norwegians may prove something (like God's Love?) empirically.
And if the cops had identified themselves credibly as cops, they might have saved themselves a fortune on blood, bullets and lawyers.
Sometimes I get the feeling from you that the most annoying aspect of a crypto-fascist government is, for you, the crypto part.
I mean, really, ren, you keep telling me not to worry without actually addressing a single point related to WHY Noreen and I are worried about Indian Point. You simply ridicule the fact that we are worried. I've given reason after reason and you've called me an atheist because I have no faith in Entergy.
But why take such a posture and play chicken with a congressional hit squad?
Entergy should already be organizing an ISA with a foreign study group, and they should let everybody within a hundred and fifty miles know it.
Why they aren't is beyond me.
And answering that with hubris (as in "they don't have to answer to anybody but their shareholder and the NRC because the shareholders and NRC are the only ones who can understand the answer!) may have worked in the past, but my money is on that strategy being slow suicide.
I'm writing a paper just for you guys, but it will take a couple of days. I'd prefer to send it by email.
These blog arenas have too much boast'n'signify to them.
Excellent! I thoroughly enjoy reading your writing, and usually agree with you - except on this one teeny little sticking (Indian) point. If there were more people like you on that side of the fence, us John Hall puppets would be in trouble.
b tween if you recall you fired the first shot. Go back to Nov. Where you made fun of the artical I wrote in the Poughkeepsie Journal. So when people who work in the industry (I have worked at Indian Point for 24 years. I have also worked at FitzPatrick, Vermont Yankee and Pilgrim) tell you Indian Point is safe. You don't trust them. You keep telling me you are my friend, but I don't trust you. What ren missed telling you about the dome is under the concret is 3 inch thick re bar. That is the skeleton of the dome. Inside is the 3/8 inch thick skin of carbon steel that covers the inside of the dome. also the reactor is below ground. In order to get into work everyday I pull my car up and my car is subject to random searchs. After I park my car I enter the command post. Where I have to go through a metal detector. Zero Tolerance.If it alarms I have to empty all the metal out of my pockets, remove belts, take off steel tip shoes, and take off watches. As this goes on anything I have taken off and all bags that I take in have to go through an X-RAY machine. If it looks suspicious I have to take it out and show it to the guard. After that I gather up my stuff and head to a machine that sniffs me over for explosives. Then I head up to a turnstile where I swipe my ID card and put my hand in a machine that reads my hand geometry to release the locking device on the turnstile. This is what I go through every day to get into work. As for what you eat. What I was referring to was rat or mouse droppings, roaches, people not washing their hands. Even where you shop this happens. So should they get an ISA? As for the NRC they don't just over see Nuclear Plants. They oversee hospitals. I have a relative that works in a hospital. When he heard that the NRC was on site at Indian Point he said their always there. We only see them when we do something wrong. THAT'S IT AN ISA FOR ALL HOSPITALS. My suggestion for you is to go to the NRC web site and see all that they are involved in. Also they list fines that they hand out and why. You will see that the industry does not have them in their back pocket. In my next message I will tell you the Inconvenient Truth about organizations like Rivercreeper. Then maybe we can demand an ISA for them.
I'm all for accountability, because the food makers, the electricity makers and the noise makers all must take responsibility for the ways they get money from your pocket into theirs.
Because people with a vested interest in keeping inspectors out are the ones who really need inspecting.
I did not fire the first shot though. Your letter to the editor did that.
Trying to insinuate John Hall was unfit because Pete Seeger was a communist was a bold statement and it rated a response. Pete Seeger has done more for Beacon than any other person or corporation and doesn't deserve to be used that way.
Hey you guys, Pete Seeger is proud of his Communist party membership (and his Dad's) . He makes no bones about it. He and Communist philosopher/philanthropist Corliss Lamont were thick as theives. So don't excoriate Mr. Clegg, for calling Pete a name that he wears with pride...it doesn't make sense.
Now on to some scenariomongering.
I have a dog who thinks I'm God.
I have other dogs, who know I'm just an annoying human, but the one dog is star-struck. The capability for moonstruck adulation must have some innate adaptive Darwinian advantage, or it would not be so strongly expressed, in both canines and hominids. It might help packs cohere, by the self-subjugation of many, to a leader figure. It may lie near the roots of religious awe in humans. It certainly is being abused mightily by our modern all-intrusive media, in its star-making machinery, above and beyond what politics or public discourse had been, before radio,TV and movies. Now, in 2007, political success for an unattractive candidate is impossible (We will never see another Abe Lincoln). More than that, our hopes of having a republic, with unglamorized civic leaders, and without royalty, are being eroded, just as in ancient Rome, by the emergence of a need to worship, a need to be moonstruck in order to trust. Fallible leaders are now hated, automatically, for not having transcendent wisdom. It bodes ill for future governance, beyond any party affiliation. Skating lightly on this predilection, the horde of third generation Kennedys has gained public influence far beyond their abilities, and have conspired in witless quixotic solidarity, to mislead the public. One such effort was the Liz Garbus/Rory Kennedy crockumentary "Imagining the Unimaginable".
In the absence of any better video to provide alternative, or countervailing visual memories, many have been left with only the Garbus/Kennedy images to guide their thoughts when considering Indian Point . Although most people do not make conscious decisions from mere visual memories, nevertheless subtle emotions can be evoked by them, lessening quality of life, for those so afflicted. They can form a nagging backdrop, implying fear. Therefore we must revisit the Garbus effort, stripped of its "royal" associations, and do it all over the right way.
Imagining the unimaginable in precise detail, reveals just why it is truly unimaginable. To do a vague, sloppy, unfocused, and fanciful imagining, can result in a scary ghost fable, such as Garbus-Kennedy's fear cartoon of the same name. But Kennedy imagined the unimaginable not from any knowledge, or any effort to really see what would happen. She imagined her fable to intentionally insert her brother's political agenda, and succeeded at that, meanwhile omitting any detailed scenario construction, knowing that it might not serve Riverkeeper's advertising and propaganda aims.
Let us now make up that shortfall. Let us imagine.
The World Trade Center's horizontal footprint was one acre per floor. An acre is 212 feet wide on each side. At over 1000 feet high, WTC protruded upwards into "clear air", air not subject to ground effects, and it was therefore easy for a new or amateur pilot to fly flat & steady right into it. At 212 feet, it was wider than the plane, and so a center shot gave the terrorist pilot the opportunity to use the entire plane's body, both wings, and both engine nacelles at the same time. All the fuel, was therefore inserted into the building.
The Indian point domes are 65 feet wide, less than the distance from engine nacelle to engine nacelle, so any pilot wishing to hit the domes must choose. A simple center shot, as in the WTC attack, will have the soft body of the plane disintegrate on the dome, while the fuel-bearing wings, and the hardest part, the most useful missiles, the engines, all passing harmlessly to the left and the right of the dome. Except for having to call out their fire brigade, Indian Point would be totally unaffected by this. When it is recalled that the impact of the plane did not bring down the WTC, but only the fire, fire caused from all the wing fuel being inserted into the building, it becomes clear that with the fuel burning harmlessly in open air to the right and left of the dome, no similar mechanism exists to induce any final collapse, as the fire accomplished at the WTC.
Thus a center shot on Indian Point, is a wasted shot.
Alternatively, the pilot can aim off center to the right or left, to get fuel inside a hole that his engine nacelle might make in the dome. First off , we are now talking about precision flying skill, and an ability to mentally estimate how far out his engine is sideways from his own position in the cockpit, and correctly translate that into an offset aiming point visually to the opposite side of the dome he hates so much, all the while flying below 200 feet, in the turbulence of the ground effect caused by flying on the deck. If he succeeds, at least half his fuel, the other engine, and the body of the plane itself will all miss the dome entirely, to the opposite side. Also, psychologically, I doubt if an excited Mohammed Atta would be capable of the steely exactitude under pressure, which would challenge him to be able to intentionally MISS the target he has given his life to attack, in order to make one engine hit it, and the entire plane miss it. It would be just too unsatisfying and unglorious, in a martyr sense. Martyrs wish centrality. This is their biggest moment.Why let an engine get the spotlight, while you, the martyr, die ineffectively, off to the side?
But suppose our pilot has such ability, manages a side shot, and by some miracle of luck inserts one engine into the dome, with his plane, the other engine, and 60% of his wing fuel dissipating against the hillside rocks.The soft wing profile will not penetrate the dome. Therefore of the remaining 40% of the fuel in a single wing, only about 5% of it will follow the engine into the hole, with the remaining 35% dripping down the outside of the dome, and immediately burning off. The engine, having hit the concrete interior walls in the inner part of the dome, will cause an immediate drop of the control rods into the reactor, shutting the plant.
All of the piping providing shutdown capability is below the 95' steam generator deck, and therefore unhittable behind the concrete crane wall, and the other missile shields. If the hole made by the engine is above 95', full shutdown is guaranteed. If the hole made by the engine is below 95', the engine will be vaporized hitting the crane wall and the missile shields. Because most of the dome interior above 95' is empty air, containing only the polar crane, only the most lucky trajectory at this height would hit anything at all, except the opposite dome wall. Estimating all possible trajectories above 95', perhaps 5% intercept any target of value.
With all hits of an engine nacelle below 95' resulting in no penetration, and engine vaporization within 10 feet, and only 5% of all hits above 95' intercepting a target of any value, it begins to become clear that Mohammed Atta #2 has sacrificed his life in vain, and very possible should have chosen another target, perhaps a taller, softer, less troublesome quarry--- one like the WTC.
But, for completeness, let us grant our Jihad pilot every hypothetical advantage, and direct the single engine onto a value target above 95'. A loss of coolant (LOCA) brings an immediate automatic scram, outside the control of the operators, ending criticality, and shutting the reactor down. Steam will fill the dome, and escape through the engine hole.The emergency sirens will sound, and an evacuation will be ordered. The fire will burn out within a half hour (no fuel or comustible materials exist inside the dome), The broken steam lines will be shut off via remote valves, ending the steam plume, the Residual Heat Removal system will cool the reactor down to cold permanent shutdown, the unit will permanently cease operation, and except for half a dozen workers burned by the exterior fire, or hit by plane debris, no public injuries or fatalities will occur.
(Nobody works inside the dome). By the next day, with a blue tarp over the hole, Indian Point will begin its decommissioning. No radioactive clouds travelling 1000 miles to erase Philadelphia and Washington, in fact, no radioactive clouds at all. A tragic and malicious attack, killing those on the plane, and perhaps one or two workers at the point, and nobody else. NTSB will investigate, and a commission will be formed. Local real estate values will rise by 40%, now that Indian Point is closed. The next summer, blackouts will most likely be encountered, without the 2000 megawatts the plant had provided.
Is this a sufficient result to motivate a Jihad pilot to embrace martyrdom? Among western antinuclear propagandists, a large blind spot exists, intentionally centered on this question. They refuse to address it. They often claim: "Mohammed Atta's team once considered Indian Point" , but they do not logically go forward and complete the exercise--- Mohammed Atta's team then REJECTED Indian Point.
There is much Wahabbi love of public terror, the slaughtering of the helpless public, and much interest in large gatherings--- night clubs, Shiite mosques, train stations, airports, the Iraqi parliament buildings, the WTC, etc. I challenge you to list for me the industrial targets hit by jihad martyrs. There are none. Industry is not present in the Koran, or in koranic thinking. "Sunni" means "way of the prophet"-- if you do not act as the prophet acted, you are not Sunni. Therefore Arabian pride does not even recognize the existence of industry. No Arabian workers can be found to man any Arabian infrastructure. All industrial workers in Arabia must be imported from Korea, or Taiwan. There is no glory in attacking a sewage tank, a trash midden, or a slop sink, all objects of disgust and proud eternal Sunni disregard. It would waste and despoil one's martyr act in servile uncleanness and unmanly humiliation. Likewise, all other infrastructure appears to the extreme Sunni Wahabbist mind as nothing more than a form of sewer pipe, fit for Kaffirs, far below any aspirations of a real believing Islamic man, even if these particular unworthy sewer pipes happen to hold radioactivity. Jihadists know this.They have entered their own Taqfir exile into Wahab martyrdom to become Sunni clean. Western antinuclear propagandists are in deep denial over this fact. Their antinuke propaganda blind spot, is the Jihadist's big religious avoidance spot. That is why Atta rejected IPEC, and chose the WTC. That is also why obsessive focus on a jihad martyr action on IPEC is wasted concern. They have other fish to fry.
From the airspace above the Hudson valley, the most visible, targetable, and fruitful martyr target is the very vital and undefended Tappan Zee bridge. At any point where a pilot could even see Indian Point, his gaze would be strongly pulled to the much-more-visible bridge. An attack on the bridge would kill thousands, without a doubt. It is also easily flown into, not requiring any piloting skills, no great decisions on the part of the martyr. It is guaranteed glory. A martyr's dream.
ren I need your help. There is a site with message board about nuclear power. including Indian Point. An anti nuke group are spruing their lies.
Just to show what lenghts anti will go to. On the web site for green nuclear butterfly they posted me as the enemy. Then they went on to give out my E-Mail adress, my home adress, and my home phone number. THIS IS A WAR THEY WILL REGRET STARTING!


text:
T H E C E I L I N G L I G H T S
T H E W A L L L I G H T S
T H E P O R C E L A I N L I G H T S
T H E O U T D O O R L I G H T S
S O L D
https://web.facebook.com/HistoricalLights https://www.instagram.com/thehistoricallights/ Emmanuel@HistoricalLights.com
Copyright © 2023 Historical Lights
Our Lighting History
Categories : All Antique chandelier Antique light Antique lighting Antique lights Antique wall sconces Art deco Art deco architecture Art deco home Art deco interior Art deco light Art deco lighting Art deco movement Art nouveau Art nouveau architecture Art nouveau chandelier Art nouveau home Art nouveau interior Art nouveau lamp Art nouveau light Art nouveau lighting Art nouveau pendant light Art nouveau wall sconces Arts & crafts Arts & crafts architecture Arts & crafts chandelier Arts & crafts home Arts & crafts interior Arts & crafts light Arts & crafts lighting Arts & crafts pendant Arts & crafts style Arts & crafts wall sconces Victorian Victorian lighting
Arts & Crafts Movement Throughout Time
By Emmanuel Hebert
In Arts & crafts, Arts & crafts architecture, Arts & crafts chandelier, Arts & crafts home, Arts & crafts interior, Arts & crafts light, Arts & crafts lighting, Arts & crafts pendant, Arts & crafts style, Arts & crafts wall sconces
During some of the same years that the Art Nouveau style took root, the Arts & Crafts movement was also gaining popularity. It, too, was something that sprung up from...
Stay up to date with our latest offers!