Port Royale 2 Patch Us

RTS and secularism


Dear Customers I received this brilliant argument on the treatment of religion or religions on our TV channels. I thank the author Joachim Diouf who took the time to write. This text is also available on senkto.org. Happy reading.

*** For some time, we are witnessing a resurgence of practices and behaviors misleading and very dangerous for the listener or viewer of Senegalese media. These behaviors are also not lately. But the extent they are taking is more disturbing. I'm not interested too in the private media but rather to those q'incarnent Radio Television Senegal (RTS). The latter, although doing a great job for his public sins or too often fail when it comes to the treatment of religious denominations. It should be noted in passing that the Senegalese are either followers of Christianity or Islam. Looking at the behavior of Senegalese radio and television as a whole and the RTS-interest here, we see easily indifference or even contempt reservation to the Christian community in Senegal. When the minister for religious affairs in the person of Bamba Ndiaye, referring to talibés, the problem of taking care of the latter lies in the fact that in Senegal we have a secular republic, which makes very difficult. While there would be no problems if this one was modeled on the Muslim. Since Islam is a religion well-organized. I will not allow myself to comment on that last sentence. But I'm right to be pessimistic and wonder if the minister will take one second to do something positive for the Christian community, except to amuse the gallery. This department also has no reason to be in a secular republic like Senegal.
Like So this minister, we can observe without effort, too negative treatment that our radio and television in earmark good Christian citizens of Senegal.
Doing his duty as a citizen should, and neglecting his duty, is typical of Catholic Senegal. Although the Christians of us, owe it to our neighbors and society enjoys a very wide precedence over personal or individual right, we should by no means lose sight of what is rightfully ours: our RIGHT. The right to equity, the right to equal treatment. This law, contrary to what many people think we are not given out of kindness or lent by some compassion or tolerance whatsoever. This right, we have acquired since time immemorial. Well before the advent of Moorish or Arab sheiks or the European missionaries. Social cohesion in Senegal before our secular republic, which is even the result of symbiosis Crop Serer, Wolof, Pulaar, Mandinka, Jools, and other Mankagnes. The fathers of our republic young Senegalese have opted for secularism or inadvertently, either by accident or through ignorance or thoughtlessness. They were quite aware that our common wish to live together finds his salvation in secularism. A nation where every citizen is to perform the duties and rights which they can fully enjoy, a nation in which the state guarantees the freedoms of all, where some freedoms should in no trampling of others. However
well before independence Senegal, a big something was added to our cultures and inked in our hearts and minds. And its mission is to support and encourage or correct certain aspects of our habits and customs. That something is faith in God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. It is also the faith in Allah and his prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him and hello).
This having been noted to return to public service whose attribute is the purpose of the RTS, it would have to be fair. One, two or three shows per week would characterize religion and that there is fairness. Other Advertisements, announcements or appeals must be in the category of ads, so pay. Religious events must have their seats or in newsletters or news magazines, and in religious programming involved or in special programs (when quotas are met) that can have a national interest.
Thus, it is time to clean house among the presenters of shows on television and national radio. It is unacceptable and should not be subject to exhibit his religious affiliation at the start or during a secular issue that is addressed in Senegal as a whole. To be precise (which is preferable), introduce, develop or enter into a religious issue not by Koranic verses, is to mark its guilty indifference in relation to non-Muslim listeners or viewers. And by the same token, a lack of respect and contempt for them.
Imagine for example, someone starts a broadcast (or other broadcast profane) by the following: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God the Father and the communion of the Holy Spirit is always with you. " Or in Wolof: "Na Barke Yèesu Krista sunu Borom, COFFEELLA u Yalla Baay ndigaale'b Xel ak ji-mu-Sell mi wey di ba faw yeen and AK.
Very nice formula! Is not it? What will the non-Christian who does not absolutely recognize this way of greeting? This Christian greeting, although nice, inspired and full of mystical, would sound for the listener or viewer as a Muslim blasphemy and provocation targeted. And we could easily imagine the anger and tolerance that it can provoke the Muslim parent.
This scenario, as we have seen, is a mere fiction. By cons, greetings high or full Islamic connotations abound in many secular programs at RTS. It is not uncommon to hear in "caxabal", "XEW XEW-u Demb," or "njegemaar" etc.. ... The presenter to make their profession of faith throughout the airtime. And without this gene or ulterior motive. Rather, the evidence of a notorious indifference and guilty about the one who does not recognize himself in this way to talk to Senegal. Which is yet in his right. We therefore need to be aware that in a republic as Senegal, the secular nature of it has not shaped over time. This means that no religion has furnished room to another. Secularism in independent Senegal was born with it. It is, indeed, a fair part of the nature of our republic.
In a show like "njegemaar" we would say that it is not desirable to collect a single point of view of a Christian on various topics of interest to the supposed common Senegal. It is preferred here, stick to soft microphone a ouztaz which to strengthen its connection, does that include the verse of the Holy Quran and Hadith. Christian viewers will feel he concerned?
Li-yoor it yoor "Francesca is more blatant. We note from the first minute that this disguised religious program is not intended for non-Muslims. While the double
respect for his faith and téléspecteurs or auditors requires the person who feels a duty to say a prayer for issuance of a non-religious make the outright before or after it and . You call it "off the air." Greetings Farewell and may simply be NEUTRAL.
If we take a look at the clothing, I remember this: it is neither legal nor proper to present the journal of the RTS1 or participate in a qelconque television as emloyé this house (rts) by exhibiting a clear religious affiliation. From this simple fact, in these emissions, the headscarf "ibadou" can not be accepted or tolerated. Each viewer of the RTS1 can make this statement simply because a suspect who is to flush out of a crowd, it may be too heterogeneous, carriers of scarves "ibadou" and show them close up. It's become all too frequent that it can not be fortuitous. Note in passing too strong presence of religious videos in the "Clip of the day" in "KINKELIBAA. Whether you allow me here to greet sincerely initiated this morning show.
And how are they about the lamentable AM Peex during the traditional military parades and civilian April 4. Words that sing the praises first marabouts caliphs and later to encourage the uninitiated to believe that these first played the largest roles in the Accession Senegal's international sovereignty.
To summarize all these reprehensible behavior, say kindly that it's total neglect very dangerous. These commentators and other presenters say proudly and smoothly: "do u Yoon sama, I'm fouées!".
Furthermore, we have, with pride and humble gratitude of the Abbe AL Ndiaye at the end of the show "the Lord's day": "Thanks for giving us 55 minutes of your precious time. Thank you very much. " But viewers of this show can say, 'No! It is we who you Thanks. Despite the poor means at your disposal, if they come down to the simple diffusion-and despite the indifference of the RTS technicians carractérisée by the quality of sound and image sometimes far below the property in relation technical and human resources to national television, you do a tough job. A team of clergy and lay people who give to their heart for his brothers and sisters in Christ should not be overlooked. And it will not trumpet or drum. But hold on! And cultivate this advantage perseverance.Car, I do not teach you anything, your reward is great. The Lord does not to deny or retract his promise. " Yet
2 hours weekly is not and never will be enough to inform Senegalese Christians about life and activities of their church. I did not get wind of the fact that they are demanding more airtime. This would also be justified. For there on the same string public PLETOR a Muslim religious programming. Coupled with other religious programs disguised calls too permanent for countless marabouts this or what it it. A Senegalese
met a fellow who expressed dissatisfaction with the quasi daily Muslim religious programs where Christians have more than 2 hours of airtime. He said this one: "The Christians of Senegal should be happy and grateful to have a (?) Show on RTS1, because Senegal is a Muslim country and Islam is a religion of tolerance". My anger was great! You surely understand me. And how much energy I had to call for him to understand that we live in a secular republic in which no religion can not be tolerated figure. And thus, Christians of Senegal can be tolerated. They must be accepted in the same way as any other citizen follower of another religion. Christians must simply be respected. That's it!
This fellow was making comments that unfortunately too many of his coreligionists in a low whisper, some, like the Minister Bamba Ndiaye, officially proclaimed by clumsiness and other ignorant sing it loud and clear that not even wants to hear. It must therefore be stressed here that Christians in Senegal can be considered as citizens of second rang.Ils are, they remain and will remain citizens full. Common sense strongly condemns and blames the fact that we allow some excess, invective or other abuses on a nice and good community under the pretext that it is one that makes no noise and does not complain all the time field. This phrase, "ah garaawul! Waa ji Amul problem ", which says a lot about the mentality of many Senegalese, is completely banish from our consciousness. At least when it sagit a religious community.
But I can not but express my astonishment and wonder about that, and these rivalries level of faith, the jostling comportementielles by exhibiting the highest and strongest possible religious affiliation; never did find almost French in emissions.
What does he think so here?
The presenter and reporters in French unless they are believers or simply unbelievers? Or are they complex or renegades? Or are they people who want to have a sense of professional and religious diversity of listeners or viewers, and by reserve duty with pride to be neutral while being good believers, atheists or even worse (s 'they want)?
I think and hope that, through these remarks, I do not violate any liberty or hurting some sensitivity. These are the only one invited to an awareness for the authorities of the RTS in particular, well-born souls and well-cultivated grounds in general.
So to those who can stretch his other cheek after a slap;
At the right hand gives the left hand without knowing it;
To him who can give his coat when he wants to take his shirt at the
can forgive 77 times 7 after seven sudden twist;
To one who can love his neighbor as he himself is loved by God;
to him that what he did for others awaits even the latter;
To him who does not complain at every turn;
In this one, therefore, give the respect and admiration he deserves. Only the ignorant or ungrateful think that it's "Nak fayda. For this one, we strongly demand, solemnly and simply RESPECT. Everyone can make the recognition that there is what he wants. But always respect. The latter can not be neither begged nor begging, or even received as a present. It is the merit that makes it freely. And this merit is alive, alive and healthy. He was born to live forever. Même dans les pires conditions d’existance.
Que l’on ne pousse personne à hurler, car se sont les oreilles qui en pâtiront. Que l’on ne ferme la bouche à personne, car ce sont les membres qui parleront. Que l’on ne pousse non plus personne à taper sur la table, car elle va surement se briser. Que ceux qui ont des responsabilités envers la société ne perdent pas de vue leur noble mission.
“Que ceux qui ont des oreilles pour entendre”, et bien qu’ils “entendent”.
Merci beaucoup pour le temps ci précieux que vous avez consacré à la lecture de la présente reflexion.
                                                                                                                               
Diouf JOACHIM

Anemiacondition_symptoms

Saint Augustine, Confessions, Book I ch. 1-6.

Confessions

of

Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo.

Edition established and presented by

Nicolas Madelenat di Florio

From the Society of Literary History of France.

To Jean-Yves Naudet, the Catholic Academy of France, with the recognition of the author.

To these people who, in the shadow of our time, dare to seek the light.

(this text, delivered in different parts of this blog will be published one week ahead of delivery in "The barrel of oxygen." The first issue was published in Issue 8)

Book One.

Chapter I. Desire of praise.

You are great and highly commendable, O my Lord! Your power is flawless, and your wisdom knows no bounds; and yet the man who is only a puny portion of your creatures, man is always responsible for the miseries of his birth and the reproach of his sin, the man who serves as evident proof of this truth, you humiliate the proud, you want to rent. Heard that the man who is so little, wishes to praise you, especially as you render him the praise of thy holy name, they are just as enjoyable. You've created for you and your heart will suffer from constant anxiety, and will never rest in the enjoyment of your own greatness. So this desire since I can not think that your movements, made me understand who must take the forefront of our homage, or the praise of your worth, or request your favor. But who could in ignorance of your Majesty, implore the help of your grace? We may misunderstand and ask what is without discretion should carefully avoid. Maybe you know, you should rely. But how men they will demand the mercies of that which they do not know the Godhead? Or how shall they believe without instructor? Also: Those praise the Lord, who seek , because those who seek it, find it, and those who find the praise. I seek you, my God, you are invoking, and I invoke you into believing the truth of your Being, since Gospel told you. The faith that you have inspired me, for the merits and blood of your Son, you claim for myself.

Chapter II. God is in us, and we in him.

And I how to invoke my Lord and my God, since the claim is to call me? What part of myself is empty of God, inviting him to come? This great God, who also fills necessarily Heaven and Earth, who has freely created, he sees that his vast spaces does not hold? Is it really believable, my God, there is some something in me that you understand? What! Heaven and earth even as you did, and in which you did me, you contain? Should we conclude that everything is, you understand, because nothing would be, if you do not press your hand? And therefore how can I ask you to come with me, can not be without you? Where can I go beyond the sky? I'm not now at the center of the earth, and yet you're already there: because even though I descended into the underworld, you are now. I'm not away from you, my God, since I would not at all, if you were in me or else I would not if I were you, of whom, by whom and for whom all creatures are. It is so, my Lord, it is so. So where do I call you is in me, and when will you come with me, being you? At which end of the world, above the sky, and below the earth, could I withdraw to my God who said I fill heaven and earth , came in me?

Chapter III. God fills all his creatures.

Heaven and earth contain you they, because you fill them? Or is it something you after they met, because you are not content? And when you sprinkle the rest of your essence, after these two great globes are full? Maybe you understand that all things, since you fill the container, you need something to be understood. The vessels are filled with your divine being, do not give you the point of consistency, even if they are broken, you're not about to pour yourself out. And when you pour out your stuff on us, you do not Drain, but you pick up ours, which is lost and dissipated. But here is a strange wonder, that you fill everything you fill it with you all. Maybe the only Ones that can hold all your Divine Nature, and hold all at once the same game? Or maybe each of them, according to their different abilities, includes a diverse, larger greater, and a smaller lower. It should therefore give the most and the least in you. Is it not also that you are just everywhere, but nothing that contains everything you?

Chapter IV. God communicates his property without the decrease.

Who are you So, my God, who are you, if not the Lord God of all things? For who would Master, the Grand Master, and God, our God? Oh great, very good, very powerful, very compassionate, very fair, very hidden and very present at all, very beautiful, very strong, constant, incomprehensible, immutable, changing everything, never again, never old! It is you who keep your creatures in force, and which consumes secretly proud of the old earth. You are constantly in action, and the rest without movement, still active and quiet, raising unnecessarily spreading without division, completing the Beings of your essence, supporting them with your support, protecting your care, producing their natures, maintaining their lives, and completing their perfection. You are looking for, although you lack nothing, you love without passion, you're jealous that you have with insurance. You repent without displeasure, and you get angry without anxiety; you change your works without changing your advice, you collect everything you find, and lose nothing of what you have. Ever you're poor, though you are always eager to gain, never covetous, and wear you demand of everyone. We give you beyond what you ask, to make you accountable? But that has only one property, which is not your field? You pay debts without having made them, you communicate your property without losing them. And what do we say, my God, my only life, my dear and holy delight, as we say in all this, which is beneficial to your glory? And that says something about you, when he speaks? Woe to those who, however, are silent your praise, since the greatest talkers are just dumb, if they talk about you.

Chapter V. He asked God's love and forgiveness of sins.

Who me will this favor, I based all-you? To whom shall I have the obligation you have opened my heart, that you ôtiez the remembrance of my crimes, the sacred brew of your love, and leaving everything else, I embrace my only good? How do you rank with me? Open my mouth and made as I speak. In what account am I to you, to intrude Act that sweet love you, and even meditate stringent punishments to my rebellion, I lost it just duty? Alas! Is it a small disaster does not love you? My God, my Lord, I beseech you by all your kindness to tell me what you are to me : Tell my soul, I am your salvation. But tell so high that I hear. These are the ears of my heart that I present, open them, and say to my soul I am your hello, I follow that voice, and I'll wait. Do I hide not your face, I die for fear of dying, and I lose my light, if I see the divine face. The remains of my soul is close to the vastness of your being, expand its capacity up to you to understand. She is in bad shape, take care of and she has only ruins, put there by hand. It has defects that may offend your eyes, I admit it and do it and ignore it, but correct them, or else that you do I send this prayer? Lord, wipe yourself my secret spots, and forgive the faults outside your servant. I take my trust in your goodness, that's why I have my appeal. You know, Lord, is it not true that I accused myself for my crimes, and that you have forgiven the wickedness of my heart, I enter into condemnation Who are you with the truth; me who am but a lie, I do not want to flatter lest my iniquity not mistaken . I do not dispute my innocence to your justice: because if you look at all the faults of men at a pinch, my God, my God, who will succeed?

Chapter VI. God is the only principle of all good.

Although I am but dust and ashes, let me implore your clemency, however, since it's your friendly kindness that I speak, and not to some mocking insolence. Maybe you'll laugh you my simplicity, but will you my compassion misery. I contend that other thing, my God, if I do not know where I came in this dying life, or to speak more truly, in this living death. Then your kindness brought me up as I learned from my father and mother, from whom and in which, over time, you have made the members of my flesh, because for me I do not remember. So I found by entering the world, the sweetness of milk. It is true that neither my mother or my nurse, do not ignite their own breasts this delightful liqueur that I drew. It was you who contact me through them, the order and arrangement that your Providence has wisely established in nature, and according to the measure of your gifts endless. It is also you who did it denied me what you gave them to me, especially since they spared me with discretion, that you their departure in abundance. And so well that I had you by them, jointly me nice and helpful. I say that this property came from you, because all the goods have no other source that your goodness and that my salvation does not recognize other principle that your mercies. Truth that I learned from you, through the voice of all that is inside and outside of me, for then, all my knowledge was to suckle, to enjoy those innocent pleasures that I sucked my breast, and cry my little sense of pain, if someone was me. After I began to laugh, first when I was asleep and then being awake at least to me Will you say, what I believed without penalty, with experience of other children on the report, otherwise I could remember. And then gradually I began to feel and know me, so I tried to show my wishes to those who were to perform, which was impossible, especially as they were within me and to them outside, unable to give into my soul not one of their senses. I was struggling so my arms and legs, trying to understand my wishes, by all signs that I could form my thoughts. And when it was not what I wanted, or because they did not penetrate my little moods, or afraid to give me things that were contrary m'eussent, I became angry, not only against my servants, but also against those whom I had no right to command: and so the tears avenged their disobedience. I knew I had done all this, seeing other children, which gave me more knowledge of what they did not know by their actions, that those who raised me in their interview. And now my child is unconscious, and yet I breathe. For you, my Lord, who still live, and that nothing ever dies, you are and will always be the same because you are at the time of birth and all we can think beyond time; but more because you are the God and Lord of all that you have created. So it is in your gasoline that causes all beings are changeable without motion or movement, and that the principle of all that is changed by continual vicissitudes, remains firm and stopped on the stillness of your nature. So is it in you, that all creatures deprived of reason and subject to time, have a lively, reasonable and eternal idea of what they are in time. Teach me, ye my Lord, for I am your servant, you who are kind to me, who am miserable, if my child has followed some other age already past, or if she kept me company in my mother's womb. I was told I do not know what these early years of my life, and then I saw and heard about pregnant women what happens to them during their pregnancy. What, my chaste delight, my God, even before that age, was I in any place or something? Neither father nor mother can not teach me these secrets, I have neither the experience of others, nor is my memory above. Can you laughing at my simplicity, if it is indeed you command me to know you and rent you that I understand. I confess myself your debtor, Lord of heaven and earth, though I do not know all my debts. I give thanks to my childhood, and that other part of my life that I hid, whose knowledge comes to us as we draw conjectures of others, and the report of our mothers. I lived and I was already then, and even the release of my childhood, I began to invent ways to make myself heard. Who is it that animal's birth, if not you, my Lord? Could it be a creation or production of itself? Or perhaps there another source from which being and life are derived in us? Is there some other principle point of our birth that you, who to be and live are two things, because Being sovereign and sovereign life are nothing but yourself? You are infinite and you never change, especially as the present day does not pass to you, though strictly speaking, it happens in you: because that, like anything else, is in your nature. Because anything could Passage nothing to being, if your Divine Essence not contained it. And since your years shall not fail : your years is not that today? And how many of our days, and those of our Fathers did they already lost in this day of eternity, which they took and will take their existence and extent. For you, you are always the same, and everything must be tomorrow and beyond, all that went before yesterday and that's what you do, what you do, and what you did today ' hui. What matter does it if what I say is not the intelligence of someone, he would rejoice, and that ravished in admiration, he says: What's this? Naturally, in his ignorance he even rejoice, preferring, not finding the secret of your mysteries, find the object of his desires, that of finding enlightenment in his doubts, finding no reason to love her.

Where To Catch A Pikacu In Silver

3rd Sunday in Ordinary Time

3rd Sunday in Ordinary Time / A 23/01/2011

Matthew 4, 12-23 (p. 447)

At the beginning of Lent the Gospel of Matthew presents the beginning of the preaching of the Lord. The contents of this preaching is neither new nor original. Jesus takes the call for the conversion of John the Baptist and in so doing he confirmed in his capacity as a prophet sent by God to prepare the New Covenant: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand". Cons by Matthew strongly emphasizes the choice of venue made by Jesus in order to begin his public ministry: the Galilee, the crossroads of the pagans. Jesus spent thirty years of his hidden life in Nazareth, so in the province of Galilee in northern Israel border province with pagan territories. It goes south to be baptized by John in the Jordan River and, after the episode of abode in the desert, heading up north. This choice is surprising. One would have thought Jesus begins his preaching in Judea, the religious center of the country, and even Jerusalem, holy city because of the Temple and sacrifices. No, the Lord forsakes such prestigious venues for every Jew and settled in Galilee, distant province and despised because attuned to the bad influences of people unclean, pagan peoples. We see, Jesus is a faithful and practicing Jew, but he does not leave locked up in the religious pride of his people. From the beginning of his mission he says he comes to all, and primarily for those who are despised by the religious elite of Jerusalem. He made the city of Capernaum on the shores of Lake Galilee, its rear base. Jerusalem will be the term its mission and not the starting point. Jesus from the outside of Judaism to go As the three years of his preaching to the center, Jerusalem, where he will give his life for us.
With this in Galilee at the beginning he wants to join the men, calling disciples. We know the story of the appeal of the first four disciples. But we should perhaps surprise us once again of the original selection of Jesus. These men are neither priests nor the doctors of the law or the Pharisees. They are not part of the religious elite of Israel. Today it looks like they are mere laymen, believers certainly not perfect, members of God's people. This choice reflects the way Jesus to make God who exalts the simple people and the lowly. These men are fishermen. Was it a good social situation in Galilee at the time of Jesus? I do not know. Peter was perhaps a master fisherman. In any case their activity seems to have a family character. What is certain is that these men, once again, are simple people belonging to a modest and popular. Well it is they who are called to become fishers of men in Following Jesus. Their immediate and generous response to this call affects us. Founder of this episode in the preaching of the Gospel we also hold an important lesson for the life of our church today. Jesus, Son of God while he was, would not begin its mission of evangelization itself. He wanted to join four men weak and without special training. Their good will and generous enough to him. When our church wants to bring the Gospel to the people of our time she does with all its members. Vatican II taught that the laity were not there only to assist the priests in this mission. Because they are baptized and confirmed the laity with priests share the responsibility of proclaiming the Gospel. And the same Council was reminded that the proper place of the mission of the laity was the world, particularly the world of work and family. The first commitment of the faithful is therefore in their places of ordinary life. It is not in a synagogue that the disciples were called but their place of work, the lake. I do not know if you realize how many meetings you have with people very different throughout the year in your work, school, shops, family etc.. In all these places you may be witnesses of Christ and his Gospel, always by your actions and your attitude, so to speak when the opportunity presents itself. This initial commitment of the laity in the world does not exclude of course a commitment within the parish or Christian community. Whether in the parish or the world we must always keep the bottom of our hearts the flame missionary. The flame that we repeated every day that we have to share the Good News without fear of the Gospel. Must still show that we know all the opportunities to do that Providence puts in our road, and with the help of the Holy Spirit we can respond generously "yes" to this inner call of Christ our Lord.

Good Canadian Product For Brazilian Waxing

Philippe Descola or anti-Girard, the last spasms of constructivism?

Philippe Descola or anti-Girard, the last spasms of constructivism?

By

Nicolas Madelenat di Florio

From the Society of Literary History of France.

Research Associate at

Centre for Research in Economic Ethics,

Université Paul Cézanne.

To Jean-Yves Naudet, a modest tribute to a scholar interested in the new anthropology.

A Maouche Youcef, in recognition of our common love for freedom.

IT IS UNCLEAR attachment of any philosopher to a method as strange if it had three advantages: to flatter his vanity, to facilitate its work, and give the illusion of definitive knowledge. As it leads to some very general theory, an idea almost empty, he can always, later, put the idea in retrospect all that experience has taught on the thing then he will pretend to have anticipated, on experience through the sheer force of argument, kissing in advance in a more extensive designs smaller indeed, but only difficult to train and only useful to keep, which is reached by digging for the facts. Since, on the other hand, nothing is more easy to reason geometrically, on abstract ideas, he built a doctrine without penalty where everything fits, and which seems necessary for its rigor. But this severity comes from what is operated on a schematic idea and stiff, instead of following the sinuous and movable from reality. How many would prefer a more modest philosophy, which goes straight to the object without worrying about the principles which it seems to depend on! She aspired to a more immediate certainty, which can be ephemeral. She would take his time. It would be a gradual ascent to the light.

Henri Bergson, The Spiritual Energy .

The release of the latest work of Rene Girard, Bloody origins already begun to make some noise. In a long interview granted to Le Monde and published this morning (January 21, 2011), Philippe Descola gives its opinion on the text and the ideas of anthropologists mimetics. I wanted to meet here in a form slightly different from my usual work, critics and opposing arguments by the Collège de France the new anthropology.

Levi-Strauss, the antithesis of Girard: prefer the "key that opens all doors" (article) to "a method of thinking. ?

This first attack is unfounded; one hand Girard does not ignore the danger of formalizing knowledge and reading of human phenomena through systems. His "key" is a base, a base on which to base any intellectual pilgrimage aimed at understanding human groups. Besides, who read his works can be regarded as tending to show that they have a truth, or Truth. Mr. Descola should consider, in good philosopher he is, that the first requirement it is not mine but of the intellectual-Socrates is able to control the words he uses. However, Girard does not have a frame through which to read the relations of men, but by the contemplation of reality, and thus rejecting the cherished Constructivist abstractions which proudly claims to be his opponent he draft, not a theory but a presentation of what exists beyond of man that the child naturally imitates his fellows, is it so incredibly shocking? Is it shocking, too, even illogical, to say that without the relation to the value given by the other to a property, the individual who does not need basically could desire? And add, then, that the report value, and covetousness, are among philosophers and economists for centuries, just as there are in St. Augustine. However, the good philosopher must find out where his thought Mr. Descola should do likewise or else recognize that St. Augustine was already talking about relationships mimetics, and Girard is everything her duty. And finally admit that constructivism is a form of dogmatic thinking, including anthropological thought. Who, then, Mr. Descola, tends to impose its vision of man?

Girard, a descendant of Freud or Frazer?

The first consideration is unfounded, although a first and awkward reading Girard's thought, he may leave an impression of psychoanalysis. However, the charge of Freudian family, several counterarguments On the one hand, Freud tends to impose an absolute model of man is to be normal, normal to which is added closer to the strange-Mental Health. Second, Freud's thought is based on a set of assumptions, theories, including practitioners and scholars choose to say they are true. Yet, believing sincerely in a lie does not diminish the falsity and this data intellectualization "rough" cut so any hypothesis of relationship. The anthropologist mimetic will find very quickly by a personal intellectual journey of the main mechanisms which mimetic. The mimetic is not an abstraction: it is a spontaneous, natural, present in every human being. This imitation, this training catallactic (in constant interaction with others) and provides group life and individual training. One of the best illustrations of this phenomenon is language. If, as claimed yet much of the constructivist language is present in humans and grows, how is it that a baby, adopted and transported across the world can easily learn the language of his new parents? Constructivism does not, and Mr. Descola should correct its mistakes before poor to address the ideas of others.

As for Frazer, what say? It is instead a great anthropologist in the classical sense, the same line that seems to defend Descola. We thinker in all the usual excesses of anthropology: the imperative of land (collect acorns with a tribe in a land known only to understand the increasing share of advertising in European societies for the next fifteen years ...), the alleged objectivity (the anthropologist expressed is necessarily the most objective and is, by law, the absolute censorship of thought). No need for lengthy this hypothetical relationship, the argument does not hold. Girard is not a man of "land" or a man of experimentation, by lying numbers, tends to show the result he wants. In short, he is sincere with its limitations and uncertainties.

Girard, indifferent to the accumulated knowledge and empirical data?

The first objection raised in this interview is funny as it is contradictory. After all, what the researcher must have respect for the famous "accumulated knowledge"? A ratio which distanced intellectual knows where he is coming, Judge awareness of past mistakes and is the strength of the history of thought as to avoid repeating the excesses often serious (think of the current Darwinian which, through natural selection to justify colonialism, slavery, and many other abominations that still list them all would take weeks). Either he cuts himself off from everything, to be revolutionary and without knowing what it will base its new thinking, wages war against tradition. The first is smart, embracing a way of conscience, not turning its back on the past but without being trapped by a habit of practicing while the second is dogmatic, not in tradition but in opposition. This will never build anything properly, merely to destroy. The wiser course is to learn to mix the two approaches to assess and judge them in terms of his own humanity, the idea to mix reason and instinct is not mine but comes from Poincaré, who then sought to define the types of scientists. The first is a sort of logistics, ie that his thinking is based on building a network of probabilities confirmed (contemplation, but different points, so the results would be projected in a contemplation of the intellectual space for blank then release the logical connections between his "discoveries"). The second is a pure intuitive; Poincare does not exist among mathematicians, as I define it. Indeed, mathematics is already a separate language to be integrated before accessing mathematical thinking, intuition yes, but under cover introductory language. Girard, meanwhile, knows where anthropological thought, he knows the current schools, some of the sources. Yet he will also find, in St. Augustine, and that its own observations confirm this trend to imitate humans. Over the years unborn certainty: human beings, dynamically interacting with the other permanent, is constructed by imitation and is pushed by the opposition. We have here the basic mechanisms of the new anthropology on the one hand imitation, mimesis and other opposition mimetic rivalry.

As for empirical data, what to say? We should embrace the Socratic method here, this method spread by Socrates which tended to challenge everything. Mr. Descola should know and should apply to traditional anthropology. For if one accepts, as the average anthropologist wants us to believe, it takes numbers and measures to understand the man, making his humanity? Do we have a great yardstick to measure where the feelings, the fear of group membership, rules for quantifying the frustrations leading to hatred? In short, if the measures are necessary and empiricism (do not forget that man is made of flesh!) Should we lower it, and there simply what is worse, all mankind? And this is where the Girard's thought is richer than the constructivists who want to erase part of a dimension of freedom intrinsic to the individual (if everything is already in him, confer Bourdieu and his atrocious social determinism) man can not decide, and secondly to deny the man's superior. It is not an animal who thinks he is a human body of flesh must not forget the dimension that will differentiate it from the animal, ie consciousness of himself beyond the requirements. The animal eats because he is hungry, can make reservations, reproduces and dies, it can be endowed with memory and even a talent for imitation. It only becomes not in some respects "human", but still a beast that imitates. And it should leave this anthropocentrism constructivists to reform their dogma; Girard did. He does not judge what he looks but merely to describe and present the results where his opponents like to place exhibitors in chimeras.

" Is a certain configuration French, from Levi-Strauss and Bourdieu Balandier, would render difficult any discussion of Girard's thesis? "

is very probably the passage most intelligent and most sincere of the article. And draw two unfortunate consequences: firstly, acknowledges Descola dominance of structuralism in French anthropological thought and, secondly, it also recognizes a state of facts doubles dogmatism is shown, that for anthropologist recognized in France, we must embrace a certain line (and here constructivists are horribly sincere, for them, and from the fact that they possess the truth, other words must be rejected in silence as being emanations the error. So, no questioning, no opening, and most importantly, no change) but also that any innovation, any discrepancies, will be condemned by the official general dislike (beautiful as a public trial in the USSR). And defender of freedom of thought to add that everything is frozen tending to die the next few years will, finally, that other voices in the howling, silent agony of the constructivist.

As for the authors presented as worthy defenders of the single thought, and so-so little! - To say. Levi-Strauss was a famous author; no one will dare challenge it. Yet few still adhere to his ideas as they are outdated and are bathed in a strange representation of man, so divorced from reality (which puts it in contrast to the image of the ideal field anthropologist dear to Descola) it becomes a long travelogue. However, anthropology is not a novel where you have to seduce his readers, the novel can, however, able to demonstrate some important phenomena present in man. Descola condemns the attack in Girard and the use of references to literature, yet he should consider whether it is more useful to Science submit fictitious persons whose few traits can be easily seized by the audience that dealing with people whom we know not even pronounce the name and who disappeared before publication of the book with their lives. Yet in Tristes Tropiques , Levi-Strauss tells a long journey, describing the characters and relationships that assume. Proust did exactly the same thing, except that it does not judge. Believe that between an author deliberately biased and the father of the modern novel that takes the fictitious characters but their wishes highlight what to see? One professed objectivity of a feint, one recognizes that there is no objectivity in man, and one sells mirages, the other miracles. No bluff in Girard, or attempt to shed a tear for the reader to the plight of the natives, before explaining how to stack the rocks can be compared with the modern attitude to drink too much. However, critics of the new anthropology attack his thoughts on the caricature, but history will judge. Bourdieu is much more fun than Levi-Strauss, his mind is incredibly complex, incredibly complex enumerative boring. However, it is considered, the volume, as one of the best analysts of modern society, his works and his views are essential in the French University. Yet it is a Marxist author all out there and he has also good reason to do so because, if not significant in anthropology, his ideas are the last whiff of a sad part of history. But it is good to read Bourdieu before discovering the critical Descola! It is good to think The distinction , this rag of a few hundred pages where the author explains, in good constructivist, that freedom does not exist and that the person is a deliberate construction of the bourgeois order to ensure the sustainability of exploitation of the masses. Freedom is not possible, no choice, everything goes well in the best of possible worlds and the gray cloth is the future of man. Anthropology is simply a weapon to demonstrate the Marxist gloomy assumptions of Bourdieu, and constructivism to recognize him all the qualities of its current. Man of the extreme left revolutionary small-time, opposed to any form of progress, the label is etched in his flesh, he is the pure product of negation of free thought by the Constructivists. Where Girard sees a spontaneous attitude of imitation to be built, Bourdieu sees a format the person by the company. This idea, moreover, is largely reflected in his discussions on television, is the acquisition automation . Any sensible person would see a need for integration of mechanisms in society (the common language for trade, social convention to avoid infighting ...), but not the Marxist thinker who did find a way to conditioning.

And on this last opposition made clear that the fundamental difference between dogmatic anthropology advocated by constructivists and the new anthropology (or anthropology mimetic) is the place of freedom left, or not at the man, if trapped in a group that is packaged, it is basically a slave, constructivists are right, if imitated by necessity during its formation and shape of choice in good conscience if So more than a machine in which automation is stored, so it is free, anthropologists mimetics are on track.

Does Hannah Moantana Smoke

Anthropology mimetic and formalization of social science, to a rediscovery of the human dimension?

Anthropology mimetic and formalization of social science, to a rediscovery of the human dimension?

By

Nicolas Madelenat di Florio

From the Society of Literary History of France.

Research Associate at

Centre for Economic Research Ethics,

Université Paul Cézanne.

To Jean-Yves Naudet, because "even if one may say that the darkness is an absence of light, lack of consideration of human Perhaps fortunately did not kill-his humanity. "

To my friend Matthew Mainz.

(This text has been published in "The barrel oxygen , Number 7)

Every animal has ideas, since has meaning, it combines the same ideas to a certain point, and man is no different in this respect that the beast from most to least. Some philosophers have even argued that there is more difference to such a man as man to man like this beast, so it's not so much understanding among the animals which the specific distinction of man that his free agency.

Rousseau Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men .

Introductory remarks.

Rousseau has little to teach the anthropologist mimetic except the horrors in which a brilliant mind, moreover, can sink if he commits the original sin of thought, namely abandon man the benefit of an abstraction. No serious researcher can not yet dare to say it has never been attracted by the calls of formalization, namely the reduction of differences between individuals proposed for consideration in a simplified form for a generalization of the special process that govern them and which we propose the study. Yet, very quickly, mind clashes with the impoverishment of such an approach, the subject of study is emptied of its substance, namely its differences. For man should not be taken as a unit switchable, a kind of solid that could polish the edges to make it, apparently at the beginning, similar to others in order to study it. Doing so is in no way an anthropological healthy. Any approach to reduce the size and complexity, the individual must be rejected, being moreover no more credible than a round square (Heidegger, Introduction to metaphysics ). Being Man is not a final form of higher intelligence designed to continuously increase its condition after separation, voluntary, with the bass of materiality. Oh how many philosophers and thinkers have been misled by their own paths in life! The man, the person is nothing more than an individual, ie a cell with relative autonomy, but the construction variable from one situation to another. In sum, it would be difficult to want to think like one. The formalization seems doomed to extinction. This is not the case and the notion of scientific, ad litteram rate science as a means to discover the truth-in analysis, is gaining ground on the approaches to logic and consistency of the humanities. Indeed, the convenience offered by the intellectual dominance of the scientific, wanting more compelling, or at least as a higher state of real truth, proven by analysis and multiplied on the basis of errors of assumptions, is a substitute convenient to reason.

State Science.

And anthropologist to question the rise of the scientific, before turning on his multiple excesses as well as the consequences of such errors in our disciplines. For this, it would almost know the history of science and ideas. Initial beliefs, the first thinkers, to question not so much on the value of science but on their immediate environment. Then the spirit, though inspired, looks to heaven to beg him to improve living conditions remain difficult, the man is a creature that suffers from being so fragile knowing they are so strong. Then contemplation succeeds adoration and worship will understand and share. Theories arise and spread. The human mind is so made that the time is always linked; Bergson to recognize that the concept of time is essentially human, it is an evolution of consciousness over time, awareness of being, consciousness of desire as . A Girard added that the first is violence that can spring the intellectual structure, in short everything that supports the individual, his thought would be a formatting necessary for the channeling of natural violence, spontaneous . The man thinks, because he is violent, his conscience and his reason, rise up against this primarity. The machine is started and intellectual because he had one day the idea of lifting his eyes to heaven, his mind opens to the world and its mysteries. Curious humans will drink what he sees, and the first thoughts to understand natural phenomena are religious, mingled contemplation is the birth of Science.

Yet it is not here in this speech of those metaphysical subtleties which have won all parts of literature, and whose programs are not Academy always free, but it's one of those truths that hold the happiness of mankind. I expect I will be forgiven the party that I hardly dared take. Colliding head on everything that is now the admiration of men, I can not expect that a universal censure, and not to have been honored by the endorsement of some wiser than I have to rely on the public: as my party is taken, I do worry of pleasing nor wits, or the people in fashion. There will in all ages of men made to be subjugated by the opinions of their century, their country, their society: such is now the freethinker and philosopher, that for the same reason had been a fanatic of the time of the League. You must not write for such readers, when we want to live beyond his age. (Rousseau, Preface to Discourse on the Sciences and Arts ) Cause do not forget to separate the wheat from the chaff, cutting the tradition that a constructivist sense exists, and beyond, the man to force him to develop in a direction pre-destiny. Abandon, good faith, this idea strangely modern thought would deprive the first of its base, freedom. For this is the fundamental flaw constructivism which, by denying the intellectual dimension of freedom intrinsic to the individual, cutting short any idea of changing company (since the groups can not develop otherwise than under a certain model, they are not free, their choices, which are not, being merely the means of control to ensure the sustainability of future construction. The man would then feel free, and this game dupe who allows his conscience not to revolt against slavery under its control and victim). Abandon also the contribution of psychoanalysis to the social sciences, in fact, a number of assumptions advanced by Freud have been corrupted by his followers and seem to tend to see evil everywhere, ostracized any conduct they deem contrary to their idea of man. In sum, in the psychoanalytic conception of the individual, the problem-leading researcher in modern social science to reject-not from both theories, ideas and values it conveys but by its willingness to impose a single model of the individual's terribly worthy of Rousseau and all deniers of freedom intrinsic part in the human mind. Moreover, applying psychoanalytic thinking to the construction of the person, and its relation to other (so as, in fact, society is a dynamic training between groups) to formalize individual returns, c is the price of this formalization, and only this formalization, the psychoanalyst can s prevail in the mind of his patient. The objectivity necessary for the exercise of this activity is largely false, the human person can not be fully ignored by itself ; be perfectly objective would be to become another self-willed, free spirit without conscience, without memory or feelings. In sum, an objective would not be human. About The third and final school of thought, what to say ... Or rather, what to expect? Marxist anthropology is a bad mixture of the other approaches outlined above, and it tends to impose a model, with its values and flaws. Add to this the desire to correct the man, as does psychoanalysis, not only that, she wants to compel the company, the group report them to embrace a certain way of (non) development.

differences and interests of anthropology mimetic.

It would be disappointing to abandon lines of research corrupted by pride to embrace others. Who could then continue to request the lights if these academics, recognizing past mistakes and their propensity to impose a certain image of man, dropped a straw idol for another, even harder? Person, and relapsed state of the error in the humanities, should enlighten the people they turn away. Who thinks even if he is interested in integration, politics, social differences, consult an anthropologist, a sociologist? Few citizens, if at all as the many schools have killed the interest in these disciplines. And recognize that the error is essentially human, as is the pride of owning believe the truth, control, and share. A classical anthropology, and its many excesses, it must then consider replacing the assumptions, pre-requisite artificial, and especially, especially, anthropomorphism ego, namely the personal values of the scientist-analyst melted in the model which he wants to screen the company or group. For if, again, tomorrow, an anthropologist gives way to see the target study through its own choices in life, or worldviews (imagine the case for the Marxist everything is class struggle and oppression by the minority owning) its results will have value in the eyes of those who share the framework first. To the necessary release of the spirit which alone can overcome all the partisan divide and thus highlight new features of human relations, anthropologists prefer classical equation data partisan, he will eventually recover, after its analysis, the evidence justifying their choices. In short, he did nothing to advance, if not his own pride and feel strange, being useful to man.

mimetic anthropology, meanwhile, has a fundamental quality which places it far above other approaches. In fact, she did not pretend to discover traits that do not exist or could exist without proof that no n'abonde this. It merely, and this is its strength, observation, and there is nothing good in this speculative approach to human relationships but simply a reading of a banal phenomena fantastic but oh so real . Not sensational, nor revolutionary! Simply the truth, that truth Pure and simple, which penetrates every man and every woman. As the basis for mimetic anthropology there is the phenomenon of mimesis , ie replicating the behavior of its neighbor is through imitation that from the first moments of his life, the child will be built. Everyone can notice the influence of this phenomenon by taking a few minutes to his own life, and his own person. He remembers how he could hate a family member who owned an object, and which made him something of the most precious and most coveted there is; of this struggle for the conquest must create a situation recurring in all human lives, mimetic rivalry. He added that the literature is full of those situations where a person falls madly in love with a person who becomes his entire life, and later collapsed into a passion now is the hyper Inflation-mimetic . Our own report to Art in all forms of representation of reality, is a form of mimetic identification and if I recognize myself in what I watch, so I can add my own person . That is the type magnitude of the Work. Everything is mimetic; mimetic anthropology is, permanently, a rediscovery of the human dimension of man. And hope, then it contributes to its expansion to bring light where there is more today obscurity.

End Stage Liver Disease More Condition_symptoms

Death

Father Assunto Bonafini, religious holy sacrament just died at 22H in the community of St. Joseph of Medina, Dakar
today January 19, 2011
rest his soul

" Give everything to receive ANY "

Diocese - PO Box 3004

THIES - (Senegal)

PRESS

My Dear,

On behalf of the College of the Diocese of Consultors THIES, I ask you to organize, today, every night, a vigil of prayer for our deceased bishop . Invite them all the faithful.

Ø Lifting Body: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 at 10am at the main hospital

Ø The Wednesday January 26, 2011 at 10am , a Mass will be said at the Cathedral of DAKAR

Ø The 26 in the post afternoon the body is exposed to the Cathedral of St. Anne THIES and 18h 30, there will be a diocesan prayer vigil.

Ø The funeral will be held on Thursday, January 27 at 10am at the Cathedral of St. Anne THIES.

Though united with you in grief.

Made Thies, January 19, 2011

Abbot Alexander MBENGUE

Resistance Calc Pokemon

2nd Sunday in Ordinary Time

2nd Sunday in Ordinary Time / A 16/01/2011

John 1, 29-34 (p. 398)

At the beginning of Lent the Gospel of John makes the connection with the festival last Sunday The Baptism of the Lord. We find the character of John the Baptist. This Gospel is so when Jesus begins his public ministry. It is a decisive moment. John makes his testimony to the Lord Jesus comes from Nazareth to the Jordan to be baptized. In advance it gives the people of Israel, the identity of Jesus. Before looking closely at this identity card, it is good to dwell on a specific fact. Twice the precursor Jean says: "I do not know." Whoever is responsible for preparing the way for Christ does not hesitate to assert his ignorance about the real identity of Jesus! It is God himself who inspired John's knowledge of his Son. He revealed to him. This fact allows us to meditate on the reality of our faith. If we are born into a Christian family we are likely to forget this feature essential of faith: it is a gift of God reveals his Son as Savior. Faith is not a natural reality accessible only to our human will. It is a grace of God revealed for our happiness and our salvation. It is for this reason that talk of "transmission of faith" is still ambiguous. Parents and catechists or priests have no power to pass on the faith. As if men could give other people the gift of faith! I often meet parents who tell me their sorrow for the children educated Christian who seem to have abandoned the path of Christ. Of course I understand their pain. I would point out that it is not uncommon for children who received the same education in the same family then took different paths ... Some remain faithful to Christ while others seem to be far away ... Why is that? By the fact again that parents are not able to transmit the faith to their children, but also by the fact that faith is a free act. Faith is always also a gift from God and a free response from us this gift. The teachers of the faith, parents, catechists or priests have only one power, not to faith but presentation of the contents. They like John the Baptist the opportunity to say who Jesus is and above all bear witness to him. True evangelism is to bear witness to Christ through our actions and our words. It differs in that proselytizing in which we believe we can give faith, even if it means not to respect the freedom and the consciousness of that which we want to bring Christ. The ignorance of John reminds us that it took the early church at least three centuries, from Scripture and its prayer life, understanding a little more about the identity of his Master and Lord. The councils were responses to errors, heresies concerning the person of Christ. Even if we have the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a light for our faith, do not believe all understand the mystery of Christ and even fewer have gone around to the measure of a human life. St. Thomas Aquinas admitted at the end of his life his temptation to burn all his writings, realizing the immense distance between what he could perceive the mystery of Christ and the inexhaustible richness of the Christian revelation.
That said let's look at how John introduces Christ to the beginning of his mission. On his identity card he wrote two words: the Lamb of God and Son of God, often translated in other versions of the Bible by the Chosen of God. And the seal that authenticates this testimony is the Holy Spirit. The expression "Lamb of God" refers of course to the sacrifice of the paschal lamb in which the Jews were in memory of their liberation from Egypt. In the New Covenant the Lamb is no longer an animal but a man, the Chosen of God, the Son of God. From the beginning of his ministry Jesus was designated by John as one who gives his life for our liberation. So this is the Cross from the beginning. Jesus is the Chosen of God upon whom the Holy Spirit. In the new covenant God speaks to us not through the prophets but his only Son, that he chose to tell us once and for all and in a way his extreme love of the Father, his desire to see us finally reconciled among ourselves and with Him. After Christ so it can be neither new nor prophets of new revelation. That is why a Christian can not regard Muhammad as a prophet.
To conclude we can ask ourselves some questions: What role does the Holy Spirit in my life of faith and my prayer? Am I always this desire to better know Christ through prayer and study? As Christians we can not rest on our achievements and even less about the only catechism received during our childhood. Through prayer we must nourish in us the desire of God, tell him that we are constantly looking. And by studying how the Word of God becomes more and more interior light and despite all the difficulties of biblical revelation.

Idea Movie Ski Streaming

Conference Presentation January 15, 2011 "The truths of science, myth or reality?"

conference presentation given January 15, 2011 in Marseille (Full text in preparation for future publication)

scientific truths, myth or reality?

From uniformity caused human dimensions formalism artificialisation social sciences to the rebirth of mankind is man?

By Nicolas

Madelenat di Florio

From the Society of Literary History of France.

Research Associate at

Centre for Research in Economic Ethics,

Université Paul Cézanne.

I'm certainly too hard, but we live in a universe all intellectual more conformist that he believes hold a sort of monopoly of conformism. That the waiver of any real self-criticism. You spend your time to push open doors literally for centuries.

René Girard, Things Hidden since the foundation of the world , Book I, Chapter I, fundamental Anthropology.

Anyone interested in the fate of human societies, their development, their progress, can not ignore the part of science. Since the very ancient times, man sought to understand its environment, then got lost in seeking to dominate; Observer he wanted to be God, and God became destructive of its own species. However, analysis of the relation of man to Science is interesting. But in the time devoted to this conference, it would not be possible to give an overall view of the multiple relationships, complex and interwoven between the individual mind, group, groups, society, and research / sharing scientific. I shall therefore endeavor to present the basic question, namely scientific truths, myth or reality ? Indeed, for quite a few centuries, science has come crowned human thought of its aura of accuracy, operating a clear division between what is scientific, and regarded as true, and what is not, considered approximate or not worthwhile. Science and the scientific community has made a labeling of Truth, a kind of intellectual orthodoxy. But who knows the history of ideas knows how science began, in antiquity, everything was as observations, and the first philosophers were also the first mathematicians, the first physicists, mathematicians and astrologers first (to develop these ideas, please refer to the excellent compilation of texts available in Pleiades, The Presocratics ). These great minds have worked throughout their lives, so that the minds of men rises above the material, dominated by the understanding. Then comes the period of the experiment, and the rise of experimental science, the arts and mystical practices of initiation, it is also the case of alchemy. But the pride of man watching and not enough understanding. He wanted to create. One day he decided to defy nature, from the copy, to direct the man and his strange temperament, wanted to be God. More hesitating he captured the fire and the fire of knowledge burns the natural land yet, but here it is like Prometheus struck by the censure, the punishment of pride being none other than the error. To embrace, in a moment of reflection, all the mechanics of the universe, here he is forced to generate its own folly: the hypothesis. It is through that evil happens. And the greatest authors to say that science can not be exact, it does, by its formalism (the development equation and assumptions which researcher even knows they are based on a repetition of errors voluntary) nothing else that the elements originally instilled in the experiment. However, everything tends to be directed by mathematics, human relations in the most unpredictable phenomena. Social science, hitherto untouched by excessive scientism, are gradually forced to formalization; departing researcher specializing in human affairs, here is the social scientist turned into a bad statistician. Philosophy, economics, sociology, everything seems to yield to the pressure, reducing, formalization. Fortunately, some researchers contend that even the basic science, there is a living, unique, irreplaceable, and that the primary role of the scientist does not want to submit the matter but, more modestly, attempting to understanding some aspects.

Prima maximum shared : Science and Hypothesis.

"We must first ask ourselves how we could have had the idea to go into the same framework as impenetrable worlds each other. "

Poincare The Value of Science .

The first part of this paper will therefore look to the value of the hypothesis. Indeed, and given the fact that the hypothesis can not be accepted otherwise than as a simplification of the truth for including the fundamental differences between people by confining them to a standard profile reproducible and applicable to a majority, say that of his interest in the quest for truth that should guide any research?

Secunda shared maxima : Contemplation and Truth.

"We want reality but what is reality? Physiologists learn that organisms are composed of cells, the chemists add that the cells themselves are made of atoms. Does this mean that these atoms or that these cells constitute reality, or at least the only reality? How these cells are arranged and where the resulting unity of the individual, is it not as a reality, many more interesting than isolated elements, and a naturalist, who had never studied the elephant through a microscope, would think it enough to know this animal? "

Poincare The Value of Science .

The second part of this communication, meanwhile, tend to demonstrate the value of observation and its value, often overlooked in favor of equations, it will address the role of contemplation in early thinkers and mystics first then apply these methods to the social sciences "Modern."

Synthesis.

"But it does not happen in philosophy, and philosophers until brought him malleable theory, modeled on the dual experience of inside and outside, which science would have needed, it was natural that the scientist would accept from the hands of the old metaphysics, made doctrine, built from scratch, which agreed best with the rule of method he had found it advantageous to follow. He also had no choice. The only specific hypothesis that metaphysics the last three centuries has left us on this point is precisely that a strict parallelism between soul and body, the soul expressing certain states of the body or the body expressing the soul, or soul and body are two translations in different languages, an original that is neither one nor the other: in all three cases, the brain exactly equivalent to the mind. (...) No, this hypothesis was naturally derived from general principles of a metaphysic that was designed in large part at least, to give substance to the hopes of modern physics. (...) Hence the idea of representing the entire material universe, organized and unorganized, like a huge machine, subject to mathematical laws. "

Bergson The spiritual energy.

The third and final part of this paper synthesizes the two previous games and open reflection, inviting the public to participate (15 minutes)