The philosophy of Maurice Merleau-Ponty was developing into a radical ontology when he died prematurely in 1961. Merleau-Ponty identified this nascent ontology as a philosophy of incarnation that carries us beyond entrenched dualisms in philosophical thinking about perception, the body, animality, nature, and God. What does this ontology have to do with the Catholic language of incarnation, sacrament, and logos on which it draws? In this book, Orion Edgar argues that Merleau-Ponty's philosophy is dependent upon a logic of incarnation (...) that finds its roots and fulfillment in theology, and that Merleau-Ponty drew from the Catholic faith of his youth. Merleau-Ponty's final abandonment of Christianity was based on an understanding of God that was ultimately Kantian rather than orthodox, and this misunderstanding is shared by many thinkers, both Christian and not. As such, Merleau-Ponty's philosophy suggests a new kind natural theology, one that grounds an account of God as ipsum esse subsistens in the questions produced by a phenomenology account of the world. This philosophical ontology also offers to Christian theology a route away from dualistic compromises and back to its own deepest insight.. (shrink)

Este artigo investiga o ensaio "Que philosopher c'est apprendre a mourir", de Michel de Montaigne. Trata-se de um texto que é um bom exemplo da forma como o filósofo rejeita a tradição metafísica na qual o problema da morte sempre foi pensado. Mostramos que a originalidade deste ensaio reside no fato de Montaigne nos aconselhar a seguir a natureza, que, em seu pensamento, se confunde com o costume. This paper investigates the essay "Que philosopher c'est apprendre a mourir", by Michel (...) de Montaigne. This text is a good example of how the philosopher rejects the metaphysical tradition in which the problem of death has always been thought. We expose that the originality of this essay lies in the fact that Montaigne advises us to follow nature, which, in his thought, is indistinguishable from custom. (shrink)

Montaigne, no "De l'art de conferer", discute critérios que permitem distinguir os homens segundo suas capacidades (suffisances). A "maneira" de discursar ocupa o centro desta questão e entre suas qualidades se destaca a "ordem", que nos é apresentada, sobretudo, a partir dos desvios da "tolice" (sottise) e "obstinação" (opiniastreté), símbolos do dogmatismo e de uma errônea lide com os saberes que se apoiam na memória. Procura-se mostrar que a ordem se funda na assimilação e penetração do julgamento nas matérias que (...) garantem o nexo necessário para o desenvolvimento adequado da conversação (conference). Montaigne, in "De l'art de conferer", discusses the criteria to distinguish men according to their capabilities (suffisances). The "manner" of discussing is central to this issue and among its qualities "order" distinguishes itself. The "order" is presented to us by the exposition of its deviations: foolishness ("sottise") and obstinacy ("opiniastreté"). These inadequacies represent both dogmatism and an erroneous way of using knowledge based on memory. We intend to show how order is founded on a kind of judgment which assimilates and penetrates matters and subjects - being it the only way to assure the necessary connection to adequately develop the conversation ("conference"). (shrink)

Multicellular organisms are ensembles of quasi-two-dimensional structures (sheets) of various kinds. Why should the development of all organisms be mediated by a quasi-two-dimensional structure? Why does such development avoid a direct confrontation with the third dimension? In this paper, we accept the challenge of addressing this question from the perspective of computational geometry and suggest that the construction of three-dimensional organisms may be explained by the constraints imposed on a bottom-up construction process.

In lines 646–60 of his translation of Aratus’ Phaenomena, Germanicus narrates the story of Orion, the mythical hunter killed by a scorpion sent by Diana because of his attempt to rape the goddess, and then transformed into a star. In particular, line 651 describes Orion's hunting:nudabatque feris angusto stipite siluas.

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and (...) made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

Zusammenfassung Nicolas Claude Fabri de Peiresc (1580–1637) gilt als Entdecker des Orion-Nebels (M42). Als solcher ist er seit neunzig Jahren bekannt. Der französische Astronom und Wissenschaftshistoriker Guillaume Bigourdan zog diesen Schluss aus Aufzeichnungen, die er in Peirescs unveröffentlichtem Journal des observations entdeckt und 1916 veröffentlicht hatte. Demnach soll Peiresc den Orion-Nebel im November 1610 beobachtet haben. Peirescs Zeitgenossen jedoch war diese Beobachtung verborgen geblieben, und niemandem sonst gelang sie so früh nach Einführung des Teleskops. Mittlerweile sind Zweifel an (...) Peirescs Entdeckung angemeldet worden. Die von Bigourdan veröffentlichten Notizen sind bislang keiner eingehenden Prüfung unterzogen worden. Der vorliegende Aufsatz liefert eine neue Transkription sowie erstmals eine Übersetzung der lateinischen Handschrift. Im Vergleich dazu erweist sich die Bigourdansche Edition häufig als nicht korrekt. Peirescs Orion-Bericht, der hier erstmals in Gänze lesbar vorliegt, wirft neue Fragen auf. Denn aus ihm geht nicht hervor, welche Region im Sternbild Orion, welche Sterne und welche Nebelobjekte Peiresc 1610 beobachtete. Die vollständige Lektüre von Peirescs Notizen verlangt nach einer neuen Interpretation seiner Beobachtungen im Sternbild Orion. Nur so ließe sich klären, ob tatsächlich schon Peiresc den Orion-Nebel sehen konnte oder ob womöglich M42 erst später sichtbar wurde. (shrink)

Zusammenfassung Nicolas Claude Fabri de Peiresc (1580–1637) gilt als Entdecker des Orion-Nebels (M42). Als solcher ist er seit neunzig Jahren bekannt. Der französische Astronom und Wissenschaftshistoriker Guillaume Bigourdan zog diesen Schluss aus Aufzeichnungen, die er in Peirescs unveröffentlichtem Journal des observations entdeckt und 1916 veröffentlicht hatte. Demnach soll Peiresc den Orion-Nebel im November 1610 beobachtet haben. Peirescs Zeitgenossen jedoch war diese Beobachtung verborgen geblieben, und niemandem sonst gelang sie so früh nach Einführung des Teleskops. Mittlerweile sind Zweifel an (...) Peirescs Entdeckung angemeldet worden. Die von Bigourdan veröffentlichten Notizen sind bislang keiner eingehenden Prüfung unterzogen worden. Der vorliegende Aufsatz liefert eine neue Transkription sowie erstmals eine Übersetzung der lateinischen Handschrift. Im Vergleich dazu erweist sich die Bigourdansche Edition häufig als nicht korrekt. Peirescs Orion-Bericht, der hier erstmals in Gänze lesbar vorliegt, wirft neue Fragen auf. Denn aus ihm geht nicht hervor, welche Region im Sternbild Orion, welche Sterne und welche Nebelobjekte Peiresc 1610 beobachtete. Die vollständige Lektüre von Peirescs Notizen verlangt nach einer neuen Interpretation seiner Beobachtungen im Sternbild Orion. Nur so ließe sich klären, ob tatsächlich schon Peiresc den Orion-Nebel sehen konnte oder ob womöglich M42 erst später sichtbar wurde. (shrink)

Transcending the various formal concepts of life, this captivating book offers a unique overview of life's history, essences, and future. "A masterpiece of scientific writing. You will cherish "What Is Life?" because it is so rich in poetry and science in the service of profound philosophical questions".--Mitchell Thomashow, "Orion". 9 photos. 11 line illustrations.

Wonder Woman and her fellow Amazons serve the full Greek pantheon, worshipping Aphrodite and Athena in particular. But Wonder Woman's realm is also home to Roman gods, African and Egyptian gods, and the new gods including Darkseid, Highfather, Orion, and Metron. Wonder Woman speaks to loyalty, integrity, and honor. She speaks to the best in people, as they relate to each other and care for one another. These values can be enough to keep people going, this orientation is what (...) they seek, and this is what they can know, what they understand to be true. Perhaps if they are seeking a god in order to find their place, they might look to Wonder Woman and her Amazonian virtues. They could do worse than submit to the loving authority of Princess Diana, god of war. (shrink)

Neuronal remodeling is a conserved mechanism that eliminates unwanted neurites and can include the loss of cell bodies. In these processes, a key role for glial cells in events from synaptic pruning to neuron elimination has been clearly identified in the last decades. Signals sent from dying neurons or neurites to be removed are received by appropriate glial cells. After receiving these signals, glial cells infiltrate degenerating sites and then, engulf and clear neuronal debris through phagocytic mechanisms. There are few (...) identified or proposed signals and receptors involved in neuron‐glia crosstalk, which induces the transformation of glial cells to phagocytes during neuronal remodeling in Drosophila. Many of these signaling pathways are conserved in mammals. Here, we particularly emphasize the role of Orion, a recently identified neuronal CX3C chemokine‐like secreted protein, which induces astrocyte infiltration and engulfment during mushroom body neuronal remodeling. Although, chemokine signaling was not described previously in insects we propose that chemokine‐like involvement in neuron/glial cell interaction is an evolutionarily ancient mechanism. (shrink)

Este texto parte de la idea de teóricos como Ulrich Beck y Peter Sloterdijk de que el mundo actual es compacto (esto es, que en el mismo la acción no escapa a consecuencias sistémicas globales) para argumentar por la necesidad de una ciudadanía global; esto es, de un activismo político civil que trascienda las fronteras nacionales. Teniendo en cuenta las barreras para tal tipo de ciudadanía que señala Orion Kriegman, se propone que la idea de yo ampliado, venida de (...) la ecología profunda de Arne Naess, puede proporcionar una base para sortear dichas barreras. (shrink)

Freeman Dyson has a well-deserved reputation as a truly original thinker. He helped to conceive Project Orion, a hydrogen-bomb-powered starship concept, and his name is associated with the Dyson sphere, the ultimate solar-energy based civilization. Whenever there are two conflicting opinions on a controversial technical subject, be it disarmament, nuclear power, or construction of big accelerators, Dyson can be depended upon to propose a strikingly original third opinion, always logical and well-considered, which bears little resemblance to either of the (...) other two. In the case of the space program his views stand in striking contrast to those of both the "Get humans into space at whatever cost" camp and the "Dump manned spaceflight and do space science with machines" advocates. (shrink)

En reseña de:Schum, David, Los fundamentos probatorios del razonamiento probabilístico, traducción y edición a cargo de Orión Vargas, Xpress Estudio Gráfico y Digital, 2016, 665 páginas.

This paper examines the interrelations between astronomical images of nebulae and their observation. In particular, using the case of the ‘Great Spiral’ , we follow this nebula beginning with its discovery and first sketch made by the third Earl of Rosse in 1845, to giving an account, using archival sources, of exactly how other images of the same object were produced over the years and stabilized within the record books of the Rosse project. It will be found that a particular (...) ‘procedure’ was employed using ‘working images’ that interacted with descriptions, other images and the telescopic object itself. This stabilized not only some set of standard images of the object, but also a very potent conception of spirality as well, i.e. as a ‘normal form’. Finally, two cases will be contrasted, one being George Bond's application of this spiral conception to the nebula in Orion, and the other Wilhelm Tempel's rejection of the spiral form in M51. (shrink)

Spranger's Preliminary Skeleton List of the Manuscripts of Euripides mentions four gnomological manuscripts:The first and the third of these manuscripts contain miscellaneous excerpts of many classical and scriptural authors, arranged under various subject headings; though some of the excerpts are Euripidean, these manuscripts have no more right to be classified as Euripidean than have the manuscripts of Orion or Stobaeus. They are, therefore, wrongly included in Spranger's list.

Translating in his Arati Phaenomena the Aratean myth of Orion and the scorpion, Germanicus introduces a series of allusions to the parallel episode in the proem of Nicander’s Theriaka, which was modelled in turn on the passage of Aratus’ Phaenomena. In so doing, Germanicus emphasizes the intertextual connection between the two hellenistic poems, and incorporates both of them in his Aratean translation. At the same time, some of these Nicandrean borrowings are reformulated through the use of Virgilian vocabulary. The (...) Orion episode can therefore be seen as a sample of Germanicus’ poetical technique and allusive art, highlighting the various components of his refined literary culture. (shrink)

Ce livre pose un regard attentif sur la philosophie actuelle et sa constellation si singulière passant entre Badiou, Deleuze, Derrida, Châtelet, Foucault, Lacoue-Labarthe, Lyotard, Nancy, Rancière, Stengers. II montre les philosophes, aujourd'hui, dans leur acte de résistance, inquiets des effets de la rationalité moderne lorsque cette dernière privilégiait seulement la figure de l'Homme, placée comme celle d'un Dieu au centre de l'Histoire et de la Nature. La philosophie contemporaine, loin de souscrire à cette promotion d'un savoir humain, lui-même prolongé par (...) une économie toute-puissante, pénètre, au contraire, un monde en lequel Techniques, Arts et Sciences redistribuent leurs rapports. Placé sous le signe combatif d'Orion, se rend ainsi visible l'âge du multiple, inscrit au cœur d'un pluralisme radical. (shrink)

"I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulderof Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tanhauser Gate. Allthose… moments will be lost… in time. Like… tears… in rain. Time… to die." . With these lines Roy testifies to his memories and to his death, a death that has, in a sense,already taken place, and one that is, by definition, prohibited. While one cannotexperience one’s own death, death is not strictly a (...) limit on the ‘other side’; it comes to usfrom the grave, haunting our lives here and now. If there is a being-towards-death, there isa death-towards-being, and in this interminable aporia, Roy, the ‘replicant’, testifies toDeckard, the ‘human’ – who might himself be a replicant. Roy gives his memories, and doesnot ask for return. He gives, he dies. And he has become immortal, `tears in rain’ havingbecome the film’s signature to which the fans continue to countersign,attesting to Roy’s testimony. Between the signature and countersignature there is aresonance and an affiliation, to the point, as paradoxical as this may seem, where it cannotbe properly distinguished which came first. Did Roy’s signature call for itscountersignature, or did Roy and the film ‘follow’ the fans? Frankly, there is no‘first’ here. This is not a sequential history. This is a story about ‘humanity’–technology. (shrink)

Professor Housman states that stella never is used to mean sidus, and for authors of the best age I believe he is right; at least I know of no examples except those which he convincingly explains away in the article quoted. There seem, however, to be instances of this usage perhaps as early as the age of the Antonines. Hyginus, fab. cxcv, says of Orion, ab Ioue in stellarum numenim est relatus, quam stellam Orionem uocant. Again, fab. ccxxiv, Crotos…in (...) stellam Sagittarium. Hyginus, it is true, was a fool, and his book is crammed with mistakes, including astronomical blunders; thus, just after the last-quoted passage, and also in fab. cxxx, he names the star Arcturus when he means the constellation Arctophylax, or Bootes. But I cannot think him quite so grossly ignorant, since he was interested in star-myths, as not to know that Orion and Sagittarius are constellations. It may be, however, that the use of stella in these passages is due, not to Hyginus himself, but to the epitomators whose extracts from the original work are all that has come down to us. Of these gentry I can believe almost anything that implies false Latin or general ignorance. (shrink)

As is well known, many editors, following Valckenaer, reject the bracketed line altogether; but the omission leaves the opening clause with a very unsatisfactory ending. μπρέποντας αίθέρι, heavily stressed by its position, seems to form little less than an anticlimax, unless we assume that the stars could hardly be expected to shine in the sky. On the other hand, when line 7 is added, έμπρέποντας αίθέρ στέρας brings out clearly the fact that only certain conspicuous stars or constellations are meant—those (...) which serve as guides to the operations of agriculture and navigation, such as the Pleiades, Arcturus, and Orion, as we may see from Hesiod, Op. 609 onwards. (shrink)

This is an important work. It is sub-titled “Reality orion?” and makes a valiant effort to reinstate the notion of person as the keyconcept in psychology. There is a preface by Professor Oeser, of the University of Melbourne, which gives a good indication of what the book is about, and incidentally does great credit to the faculty of psychology in Melbourne. “When” says Professor Oeser, “about the middle of the nineteenth century, the science of experimental psychology was born, the (...) infant was crippled by an array of physical and physiological instruments. It was starved on a diet of psychophysics, and later of rats….” Instead of a preoccupation with psychophysics and rats, Oeser contends that the science should concern itself with “the person”, and lauds Lafitte for the devastating way in which he has dealt with “the perversions or pseudo-sciences of some psychometricians, psycho-analysts and rat-lovers”. This is trenchant writing, and Lafitte in the substance of the work lives up to the promise of the foreword, both in ideas and in style. (shrink)