ellauri023.html on line 672: Although the Greeks and Romans typically scorned Egyptian animal-headed gods as bizarre and primitive (Anubis was mockingly called "Barker" by the Greeks), Anubis was sometimes associated with Sirius in the heavens and Cerberus and Hades in the underworld. In his dialogues, Plato often has Socrates utter oaths "by the dog" (kai me ton kuna), "by the dog of Egypt", and "by the dog, the god of the Egyptians", both for emphasis and to appeal to Anubis as an arbiter of truth in the underworld.
ellauri029.html on line 114: What we learn from the books, we put straight into practice, in example in the dialogues during training sessions or while working in the projects.
ellauri096.html on line 295: Socrates could regain consistency by downgrading his meta-knowledge to the status of a belief. If he believes he knows nothing, then he naturally wishes to remedy his ignorance by asking about everything. This rationale is accepted throughout the early dialogues. But when we reach the Meno, one of his interlocutors has an epiphany. After Meno receives the standard treatment from Socrates about the nature of virtue, Meno discerns a conflict between Socratic ignorance and Socratic inquiry (Meno 80d, in Cooper 1997). How would Socrates recognize the correct answer even if Meno gave it?
ellauri099.html on line 174: And behind his extraordinary inventiveness, Plato performs a characteristic disappearing trick. Truth to tell, we know very little about Plato. According to Plutarch, he was a lover of figs. Big deal! Plato is mentioned only a couple of times in the many dialogues that bear his name. He was present at Socrates’ trial but — in a beautifully reflexive moment that he describes in the Phaedo — absent from the moment of Socrates’ death, because he was sick.
ellauri153.html on line 340: dialogues between God, human beings and the world as games. 1065 We can e.g. take the storyline of
ellauri153.html on line 358:

“God is omnipotent” is true at game history w if and only if God has a winning strategy in the justice-of-God game G. Tässähän se tapahtuu se suuri lässähdys. Muka omnipotentti jumala saa häthätää saatanasta matin loppupeleissä. Matkan varrella isokyrpäinen valas voi syödä vaikka kaikki sen nappulat paizi kurkon, joka jää viimeisenä laudalle. Aika lohduttavaa sen muulle tiimille. One can make a few clarifying remarks about the structure of the game. The form of the game is relatively simple: it’s an ordinary extended-form perfect information game. tuskinpa Jobilla oli täydellistä informaatiota pelitilanteesta tai edes pelin säännöistä, muista pelaajista puhumattakaan. Aika isoja informaatiojoukkoja oli niiden kalloissa. Sitäpaizi ei luonnossa pelaajat siirrä vuoronperään, vaan koko ajan, niinkuin differentiaalipeleissä. . The goal is here not to go deeply into technical details, but to construct an übersichtlich representation for the theological grammar of biblical stories and to highlight the uses of terms like “good” and “omnipotent” in them. The game or model can then be used as a simplified fragment that can be projected onto, contrasted with and used to interpret biblical stories. The point of this clarification is to highlight the grammar of the divine properties “good” and “omnipotent” within the logic of the struggle myth, and to get the consistency of {God is good, God is omnipotent, There is chaotic evil} as in the Book of Job. The argument needs two assumptions. First, the games between God, humans and creation are genuine dialogues. Paskanmarjat, ei nää ole edes mitään signaling gameja, puhumattakaan dialogipeleistä. Olis kannattanut lukea mun väitöskirja Dialogue Games, siinä on oikeeta sananvaihtoa. The players answer each other and thus have to take turns in making moves and participating in them. Then the game of Job and the struggle against chaos is in extended form to represent the sequence of the debate, and its resolution gives the drama of the fight against kid chaos. Second, the properties of God like “omnipotent” and “good” are defined against the background of Job’s encounter with God and the struggle against chaos. This redefinition builds on both James’ reinterpretation of the properties of God in terms of religious practices, and also of Job’s new world of faith in the encounter. Job’s encounter with God and the struggle against chaos are modelled in the game, so such properties of God as “good” and “omnipotent” are then internal to the game. Missä kohtaa Jopilla on tässä jotain pelivaraa? Montako valintaruutua Jobilla edes on: Marise-älä marise, ja Pyllistä-älä pyllistä. Siinä kaikki. Jotta jumalan tiimi voittaisi, sen pitää ensin marista ja sit pyllistää. Nain on meidankin elamassamme! Marise mitä mariset, mut muista pyllistää!
ellauri164.html on line 372: I blew through this novel myself, which in retrospect was somewhat of a grave mistake, as the book alternates between compelling and highly engaging dialogues to unrealistically long monologues which to me resemble a Rimbaud poem in translation than anything else, which is to say: hard to parse. That they got more than what they bargained for is what the ordinary reader will be struck by first when they read this. The complexity of each of the conversations cannot be overstated, which I think will inevitably result in readers just mechanically scanning the sentences rather than internalizing the arguments, with the final result being the great part of the novel sliding off like rain, leaving only vague impressions like it did with me unfortunately, but the parts that did affect me left me very humbled. And chiefly this impression will not be helped by another one of the defining features of the novel, which is its vagueness. It deliberately leaves a lot of key details unheard and leaves a lot to the ability to infer events by the reader. Though sometimes frustrating to a reader like me who reads history and biography, I recognize that it should be so for this novel, for the main conflict in it is a psychological one, so I wouldn't have it any other way.
xxx/ellauri027.html on line 962: Each seminar group feels unique and special. The fact that there are 100 participants of heterogeneous backgrounds means that the inviduals may feel just semi-unique and not-quite-so special (there are about 30 unique ideas in ciruclation anyway, as my assistent has shown), but semi-guided discussions as well as informal dialogues outside the seminar room can be highly rewarding for the participants. Such dialogues are not charged separately.
xxx/ellauri122.html on line 186: Don't forget to practise what you've learned with the activity further down this page. Listen to some examples of dialogues featuring sarcastic remarks
xxx/ellauri126.html on line 481: The Mind & Life Institute is a US-registered, not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization founded in 1991 to establish the field of contemplative sciences. Based in Charlottesville, Va., the institute “brings science and contemplative wisdom together to better understand the mind and create positive change in the world." Over three decades, Mind & Life has played a key role in the mindfulness meditation movement by funding research projects and think tanks, and by convening conferences and dialogues with the Dalai Lama. Since 2020, Mind & Life's grant-making events and digital programs have sought to nurture personal wellbeing, build more compassionate communities, and strengthen the human-earth connection. And fatten the monks' bank accounts. 1 to lama, 2 to me.
xxx/ellauri128.html on line 121: Chamfort palveli ensin innokkaasti Ranskan vallankumousta, työskenteli Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyès’n ja Mirabeaun kanssa, joutui sittemmin vankeuteen ja kuoli itsemurhayrityksen seurauksista. Chamfort oli kuuluisa henkevästä ja sukkelasta puhetavastaan, hän oli muuten sairaalloisen tunteikas, ylpeä ja kyyninen ihmisvihaaja. Ylen eroottisella elämällään − hän rakasti samalla kertaa neljää ylhäistä naista − hän tärveli terveytensä ja oli jo 40-vuotiaana ruumiillisesti ja henkisesti elähtänyt. Vuonna 1781 hän tuli Ranskan akatemian jäseneksi. Chamfortin teoksista murhenäytelmä Mustapha et Zéangir (1777) on täynnä liikuttavia kohtia, mutta muuten keskinkertainen. Hänen muista teoksistaan on mainittava hänen kuolemansa jälkeen ilmestynyt Pensées, maximes, anecdotes, dialogues (1803). Hänen teoksensa julkaisi Pierre-Louis Ginguené (1795, 4 nidettä) ja Pierre René Auguis (1824−1825, 5 nidettä).
xxx/ellauri148.html on line 452: In Como, Italy, the festival ‘A due voci -dialogues of music and philosophy’ takesplace in Como as part of UNESCO's World Philosophy Day. It presents the projects selected by the Call for projects launched last Julyby the organizers. All the information about the initiatives and the young musicians and philosophers involved. Is available in the following link.
xxx/ellauri170.html on line 188: To dialogues of business, love, or strife; Bisnixeen, rakkauteen tai riitaan,
xxx/ellauri225.html on line 410: Crane´s critical effort, like those of Keats and Rilke, is mostly to be found in his letters: he corresponded regularly with Allen Tate, Yvor Winters, and Gorham Munson, and shared critical dialogues with Eugene O´Neill, William Carlos Williams, E. E. Cummings, Sherwood Anderson, Kenneth Burke, Waldo Frank, Harriet Monroe, Marianne Moore, and Gertrude Stein. He was also an acquaintance of H. P. Lovecraft, who eventually would voice concern over Crane´s premature aging due to alcohol abuse. Most serious work on Crane begins with his letters, selections of which are available in many editions of his poetry; his letters to Munson, Tate, Winters, and his patron, Otto Hermann Kahn, are particularly insightful. His two most famous stylistic defenses emerged from correspondences: his "General Aims and Theories" (1925) was written to urge Eugene O´Neill´s critical foreword to White Buildings, then passed around among friends, yet unpublished during Crane´s life; and the famous "Letter to Harriet Monroe" (1926) was part of an exchange for the publication of "At Melville´s Tomb" in Poetry. The literary critic Adam Kirsch has argued that "Crane has been a special case in the canon of American modernism, because his reputation was never quite as secure as that of Eliot or Stevens. In fact he FAILED."
14