ellauri051.html on line 1880: 1266 The young mother and old mother comprehend me, 1266 Nuori äiti ja vanha äiti ymmärtävät minut,
ellauri053.html on line 1026: "I felt sure that some Being who comprehended me and my world was seeking his best expression in all my experiences, uniting them into an ever-widening individuality which is a spiritual work of art. To this Being I was responsible; for the creation in me is His as well as mine." He called this Being his Jivan devata (“The Lord of His Life”), a new conception of God as man’s intimate friend, lover, and beloved that was to play an important role in his subsequent work.
ellauri063.html on line 102: This is a basic fact about Marx’s view of socialism that SD, Stalin, Mao, Castro and all the rest who advocate socialism from above, have failed to comprehend, so determined were they to impose ‘socialism’ on other countries, or, indeed, on their own people.
ellauri080.html on line 518: The other axis seeks to discover, cognate, or comprehend the true nature of things (SI) by compositing the uniting elements between various creative perspectives on things (NE); the image I like to use here is of a diagram showing multiple perspectives of a 3-D object in 2-D space, where each perspective conceals something in order to reveal something else.
ellauri100.html on line 539: The other scale is the Subjective Numeracy Scale by Angela Fagerlin and colleagues, which measures individuals’ preference for numerical information. Numeracy (adapted from the term ‘literacy’) represents individuals’ ability to comprehend and use probabilities, ratios, and fractions. Traditional measures of numeracy ask people to perform mathematical operations, such as ‘If person A’s risk of getting a disease is 1% in 10 years, and person B’s risk is double that of A’s, what is B’s risk?’ However, some participants find these types of problems stressful and unpleasant, plus they are difficult to score in online studies. Subjective numeracy measures (like the scale you just took) are shown to be equally good measures of numeracy, without burdening participants.
ellauri141.html on line 393: To comprehend, but never love thy verse.
ellauri150.html on line 738: I think it is more of a Protestant attribute than a Catholic one to interpret the Bible literally. Catholics have a more complex and mystical interpretation of the Bible. Take for example the Assumption of Mary as well as the Immaculate Conception. These are not tied into physical phenomenon, but are purely spiritual and can only be understood by faith. This is also true of substantiation and the Holy Trinity. Like the universe itself, these are mysteries that the human mind cannot comprehend. (I just checked the Catechism. The section on creation, 337-349, does not give a strict literal interpretation of the six days.)
ellauri158.html on line 293: P. 1. prop. 30. Intellectus actu finitus aut actu infinitus Dei attributa Deique affectiones comprehendere debet et nihil aliud. [in: P. 2. prop. 4.]
ellauri158.html on line 432: P. 2. prop. 8. Ideae rerum singularium sive modorum non existentium ita debent comprehendi in Dei infinita idea, ac rerum singularium sive modorum essentiae formales in Dei attributis continentur. [in: prop. 45., P. 3. prop. 11. schol.]
ellauri158.html on line 433: -- P. 2. prop. 8. coroll. Hinc sequitur, quod, quamdiu res singulares non existunt, nisi quatenus in Dei attributis comprehenduntur, earum esse obiectivum sive ideae non existunt, nisi quatenus infinita Dei idea existit; et ubi res singulares dicuntur existere, non tantum quatenus in Dei attributis comprehenduntur, sed quatenus etiam durare dicuntur, earum ideae etiam existentiam, per quam durare dicuntur, involvent. [in: P. 2. prop. 9., prop. 11., prop. 15., prop. 45., P. 3. prop. 11. schol., P. 5. prop. 21., prop. 23.]
ellauri164.html on line 379: I wanted to like this book so much more than I did. I actually found it incredibly difficult to understand. Some of it, I think, was that it was poorly translated. I read a 1962 edition that doesn't even cite a translator -- so many of the sentences were so convoluted as to be utterly obtuse. Poor translation or witless reader? I never could figure out why Mlle Chantal was such an angry bitch and why she insisted on tormenting the priest. What was her secret? Was the priest an alcoholic or just terminally sick? Gay? Why did M le Comte come to hate the priest? These are just some of the basic narrative issues I couldn't figure out. Forget the whole spiritual aspect--much of what the priest mused on and felt was incomprehensible to me as he described it. I can't help wondering if I'd have understood it if I had read it in French. Or maybe I'm just so spiritually challenged (in a God believing, Catholic way) that I can't comprehend it when it's described. All of that said, there were profoundly moving passages here and there, but over all I don't begin to know what I read. It's rather embarrassing actually--I feel so simple! (less)
ellauri375.html on line 431: Mystery of God's Will: Ultimately, the reasons behind God's actions and the existence of evil are often viewed as beyond human understanding. Many religious believers accept that God's ways are mysterious and that humans may not fully comprehend the divine purpose behind suffering and evil in the world.
xxx/ellauri165.html on line 366: They brought me word, Mr Whitby from the Admiralty. 'Show him in directly,' I said. He came in, and with a pale countenance and faint voice, said, 'We have gained a great Victory.' – 'Never mind your Victory,' I said. 'My letters – give me my letters' – Captain Whitby was unable to speak – tears in his eyes and a deathly paleness over his face made me comprehend him. I believe I gave a scream and fell back, and for ten hours I could neither speak nor shed a tear.
xxx/ellauri187.html on line 92: It seems at times that Rodin and Rilke struggled with the practice of empathy, as if—like their own art—it was a genuinely new and difficult thing to comprehend.
xxx/ellauri255.html on line 104: Antony Pyp Pipo: What has stood out is the sheer horror of the civil war. There’s a savagery and a sadism that is very hard to comprehend; I’m still mulling it over and trying to understand it. It was not just the build-up of hatred over centuries but a vengeance that seemed to be required. It went beyond the killing; there was also the sheer, horrible inventiveness of the tortures inflicted on people. We need to look at the origins of the civil war: who started it, and was it avoidable? But one also needs to see the different patterns seen in the “Red Terror” (the campaign of political repression and violence carried out by the Bolsheviks) and the “White Terror” (the equal or worse violence perpetrated by that side in the war)– and consider the question: why are civil wars so much crueller, so much more savage than state-on-state wars?
15