David Lynch Books

This is a very detailed and useful reference for understanding more about the Italian wines and the region. I appreciate the link to the historical aspects and food pairing. Great find if you're looking to learn more about Italy and it's wines.

I liked this book a lot. The format was perfect for my taste. Every region had its own chapter, written in a very addictive and enjoyable way. Authors did not try to talk about all the producers, giving readers the option to dig deeper into any particular region by themselves, which I find enjoyable. I liked a lot guided tastings. Now I know what to look for in similar books for different countries or continent (for example a book recently purchased on South America was a disappointment). I can now understand why other reviewers said even Italians from Italy would love this book. I think this is the 2005 edition (equal to the 2002 edition, just different cover) and some wines in the tasting areas changed names or stopped doing the particular bottle. I am in the middle of discovering the new ones for the regions I am starting with. In case anybody knows about a site where the tastings are updated or would like to exchange corrections please contact me.

Clear and concise, this guide clarifies a complex subject - the history and present state of Italian wines. While it is objective in its recommendations, anecdotes of regional Italian life add the human interest elements that make us care about Italy and its wines.

I had the hard-cover version of this book and insisted so many friends and colleagues read it I managed to lose it and had to buy another copy! Great descriptions, recipes and candid details about Italian wines-- especially wines that one can actually have a chance to purchase without a plane ticket to Italy.

The writers situate fascinating personal and societal anecdotes within the context of Italian history and culture, broadening the story of wine beyond the science of viticulture. The authors obviously have a deep grasp and appreciation of Italian wines, and convey their knowledge eloquently, yet without a hint of pretentiousness. A very enjoyable read.

This review mostly concerns the Enquiry. The Letter is primarily a defense of Hume's earlier Treatise of Human Nature, while his Abstract is an anonymous review of the Treatise. It strikes me as very funny, though not surprising, that Hume would review his own work. Funny because any author would give his right arm to get at least one favorable review when all the other critics are completely missing its point. Unsurprising because Hume was probably one of the only people alive at that time who could truly grasp all the facets of his radical philosophical claims.

The Enquiry was written after the Treatise. Hume, though he claimed the opposite, seems never to have really recovered from the blow he took from seeing his Treatise "fall dead born from the press." As a result, his Enquiry is far more cautious in the steps it takes. (For those of you who have read both, yes, I swear, Hume IS more cautious. Compare the claims.) A more robust philosophical stance is taken in his Treatise, while a more focused stance is taken in his Enquiry.

The Enquiry is mainly a work of epistemology and as such, scrutinizes our methods of acquiring knowledge. Making perhaps the most radical (and poignant) claim in all of modern philosophy, it posits, and supports, that there is NO causation, only conjunction. That, for example, when we see a glass drop and break, we cannot say we know gravity caused this (in the way we know two plus two equals four). All we see is constant conjunction. The connection is lacking, i.e., it is not inconceivable that the glass wouldn't bounce, turn to ash, or dissolve into sand (the way it is inconceivable that two plus two equals five). This, in effect, nullifies all the so called "laws" of nature that are formed by science. (Note that this does not state that there are no laws of nature, just that we really can never make the claim that we ever really know there are laws of nature.)

This could be thought of as the philosophical shot heard round the world. Agree or disagree, Hume must be answered. Hume has historically been charged with creating an intellectual and philosophical cul-de-sac with his skepticism. To paraphrase Bertrand Russell, Hume makes a claim which none can refute, but at the same time one which none can accept. In effect, Hume's philosophy seems to bind the human mind, stopping its journey of discovery and ultimately accomplishing what his predecessor, John Locke, set out to do, i.e., map the extent of human knowledge.

However, where one may see Hume's philosophy as shackles and fetters in the search for truth, one could also equally see his philosophy as liberation. Implicit in his philosophy is the idea that ANYTHING is possible. There are no shackles, no fetters, no limits; only those that we create for ourselves. Our limits are self-imposed, constructs of our observance (and inference) of connection. In this way Hume appears in the same light as the Eastern masters seeing that reality is not what we have (through experiential knowledge) believed it to be. It is something much more wondrous. In Zen, our causal thinking is the only barrier between the person and enlightenment. Hume could be seen as implying that when the idea of causality is removed, with only conjunction remaining in its place, the state of true knowledge and wisdom (true zen) is achieved.

This, of course, is only idle speculation. But it is stated so as to demonstrate the richness and immense possibility Hume's philosophy possesses when seen in the correct light. Instead of saying, "Nothing is certain," after reading Hume, one can say, with equal validity, "Anything is possible." The first statement approaches philosophy with despair. The second approaches it with a sense of childlike wonder and hope at the immense possibilities of reality. It approaches life as a beginning, not an ending. It approaches life as the philosopher approaches it.

If one accepts the methodology of Descartes in applying scepticism to reason and the senses, in effect denying the existence of all things but a "thinking thing," two entailments are logically consequent: Either Berkeley's idealism or Hume's scepticism. I don't accept Descartes' starting point, so I find the entailments confused and incoherent. But if one does accept Descartes' starting point, then the two extremes must be heeded. If for no other reason than observing the absurdity of either man's conclusions, it is valuable to read both entailments. But in their confused process, both men bring certain salient features to light.

Hume accepts Descartes starting point, making it his own. But to Descartes method, he adds Pyrrhonist scepticism: That all reason leads to infinite regress, and that all sensations (or impressions) can not be trusted.

Hume begins with the conclusion that all sense perception is either an impression or idea. Even memory and imagination, two other faculties of the mind, are conflated into these two species of perceptions, as impressions. Their difference is one of degree (vivacity), not of kind. Hence, Hume is the author of what is known as the "Copy Principle." Instead of unmediated, direct perception through the ordinary senses, all perception is mediated by the imagination into impressions and ideas. From this follows certain resemblances, contiguity, and causal associations between impressions or ideas, and from this association we develop a sense of self. But even the notion of causality here is one of implied inference, not of actual inductive reason. Hume denies there is any real causality that can be known, although we operate "as if" we infer cause from effect. Even probability is reduced to a mere association of ideas and/or impressions; because neither reason (which always leads to infinite regress) or senses (which can always be deceived) can actually be true. The Enquiry also treats of miracles and the testimony of others derisively; but don't we rely on the testimony of others who claim the earth is round rather than flat, just as we rely on others who testify to miracles in a byegone era? After all, few of us have direct experience with a spherical earth (Popper makes this observation).

Hume's method incorporates five kinds of scepticism: (i) methodological, (ii) conceptual, (ii) nomological, (iv) explanatory, and (v) reductive empiricism. His commitment to scepticism is not without some capitulation. While he denies absolute causality and inductive inference and probability in an actual senses, he relies on them for practical purposes. One can't remain a pyrrhonist for long; some elements of reason and some degree of confidence in impressions is necessary for ordinary life. But if one starts with Descartes' starting point, extreme scepticism is a necessary entailment. Which, after seeing Hume deny so much intuition, is it really worth starting with Descartes' scepticism? Answering that question is what makes Hume interesting.

David Hume was perhaps the leading light in the Empiricist movement in philosophy. Empiricism is seen in distinction from Rationalism, in that it doubts the viability of universal principles (rational or otherwise), and uses sense data as the basis of all knowledge - experience is the source of knowledge. Hume was a skeptic as well as empiricist, and had radical (for the time) atheist ideas that often got in the way of his professional advancement, but given his reliance on experience (and the kinds of experiences he had), his problem with much that was considered conventional was understandable.

Hume's major work, 'A Treatise of Human Nature', was not well received intially - according to Hume, 'it fell dead-born from the press'. Hume reworked the first part of this work in a more popular way for this text, which has become a standard, and perhaps the best introduction to Empiricism.

In a nutshell, the idea of empiricism is that experience teaches, and rules and understanding are derived from this. However, for Hume this wasn't sufficient. Just because billiard balls when striking always behave in a certain manner, or just because the sun always rose in the morning, there was no direct causal connection that could be automatically affirmed - we assume a necessary connection, but how can this be proved?

Hume's ideas impact not only metaphysics, but also epistemology and psychology. Hume develops empiricism to a point that empiricism is practically unsupportable (and it is in this regard that Kant sees this text as a very important piece, and works toward his synthesis of Empiricism and Rationalism). For Hume, empirical thought requires skepticism, but leaves it unresolved as far as what one then needs to accept with regard to reason and understanding. According to scholar Eric Steinberg, 'A view that pervades nearly all of Hume's philosophical writings is that both ancient and modern philosophers have been guilty of optimistic and exaggerated claims for the power of human reason.'

Some have seen Hume as presenting a fundamental mistrust of daily belief while recognising that we cannot escape from some sort of framework; others have seen Hume as working toward a more naturalist paradigm of human understanding. In fact, Hume is open to a number of different interpretations, and these different interpretations have been taken up by subsequent philosophers to develop areas of synthetic philosophical ideas, as well as further developments more directly out of Empiricism (such as Phenomenology).

This is in fact a rather short book, a mere 100 pages or so in many editions. As a primer for understanding Hume, the British Empiricists (who include Hobbes, Locke, and Berkeley), as well as the major philosphical concerns of the eighteenth century, this is a great text with which to start.

Hume, I and many others think, was the greatest philosopher to have written in English, and this is the book to pick up if you want to introduce yourself to Saint David's distinctive brand of classical empiricism. This is a must-read for anyone with even a passing interest in philosophy, and it's hard for me to see how anyone interested in the history of modern thought can avoid reading this book or the corresponding sections of Hume's Treatise.

As is well-known, the Enquiry concerning Human Understanding was intended as an encapsulation and popularization of the views Hume defended in Book I of his magnum opus, A Treatise of Human Nature. Hume assumed that book's commercial failure could be accounted for by its length, difficulty, and lack of accessibility, and so, being a man who desired literary fame, he hoped to acquire commercial success by presenting the same ideas in a more appealing and accessible manner. Unfortunately, it seems Hume misunderstood what the literati of his day were looking for in a philosophical treatise. For the Enquiry, like the Treatise before it, didn't bring him the fame he sought. Still, Hume did understand what goes into writing excellent philosophical prose, and consequently this book is a much easier read than Book I of the Treatise. Indeed, this book constitutes an excellent introduction to Hume's thought, and, except for maybe Berkeley's Three Dialogues, I can't think of another primary source that would serve as a better introduction to classical British empiricism.

Now, let's get to the ideas here. Hume, like the other classical empiricists, was primarily concerned with the psychological question of the origin of our concepts. About the answer to this question, the empiricists were all agreed--our concepts are furnished by experience, which includes both sensory experience and introspection (i.e., the experience of our own mental states). And the empiricists also agreed about the way we can justify our beliefs. Some beliefs are true (or false) in virtue of the ideas they contained, and we can know their truth (or falsity) simply by thinking about them; other beliefs are true (or false) in virtue of how the external world is, and we can know their truth (or falsity) only by drawing on our experiences of the world. According to Hume, all substantial conclusions about the world fall into this second category. That is, the truth (or falsity) of all substantial claims about the existence and nature of things in the external world can be discovered only by checking those claims against the evidence of our senses.

The traditional way of placing Hume within the story of empiricism goes something like this. Hume takes up the empiricism of Locke and Berkeley and pushes it to its logical conclusion. Whereas Locke and Berkeley hadn't been wholly consistent empiricists, Hume, the true believer, demonstrates that classical empiricism leads to a pretty thoroughgoing skepticism. Since he's wholly convinced of the truth of his empiricist premises, Hume is willing to accept the skepticism that goes along with them. However, those who aren't convinced of that his empiricism is obviously correct think that Hume has actually demonstrated the implausibility of his empiricism. If this is where empiricism leads, they think, then it's clear that we need to reject empiricism. Indeed, some, like Thomas Reid, view Hume's arguments as constituting a reductio ad absurdum of his sort of empiricism. On this interpretation, Hume's philosophy essentially presents a dilemma for all future thinkers: abandon empiricism, or accept empiricism along with Humean skepticism.

But a different view of Hume, one of Hume as proposing a wholly naturalistic account of the human mind, has recently emerged as a competitor to the general conception of Hume's place within philosophy sketched in the previous paragraph. This interpretation downplays Hume's skepticism and emphasizes his professed intentions to provide a positive account of the operation of the human mind that appealed to nothing beyond the evidence of our senses. According to proponents of this interpretation, Hume is most interested in a description of the operation of the human mind. He's describing what human nature allows us to know and what it doesn't allow us to know. Furthermore, he argues that our nature is such that, where it fails to provide us with the resources to acquire the knowledge we might want, it provides us with a natural habit of forming the right conclusions anyway. Even though our nature limits our knowledge of the world, it ensures that we possess the habits of mind needed to make our way in the world. Hume dubs all these habits of mind "custom."

If this view is correct, then Hume has abjured many of the normative aims of traditional epistemological inquiry. He isn't attempting to show how we can answer a skeptic or why we have good reason to believe what we think we know. Instead, he wants us to stand back from our everyday beliefs and think about the natural processes that result in them. How, exactly, do our minds operate? How do we come to think what we do about the world? Hume thinks that this sort of inquiry will lead us see that, at some point, the explanation of why we think what we think reaches certain brute facts about the operation of the human mind. When we reach these points, there is nothing more to be said. We simply can't help thinking in these ways, and we lack the resources to demonstrate that these ways of thinking constitute an accurate way to represent the operation of the external world. And, Hume claims, it turns out that many of the fundamental elements of our conception of the world--the belief that things stand in causal relations to one another, the belief that we can know that there is a world outside our minds, the belief the future will resemble the past--end up not being open to ratification by experience. With respect to beliefs of these sorts, we ultimately have to appeal to custom in order to explain their existence and popularity. Hume, then, can be seen as demolishing the pretensions of reason in order to make room for a wholly naturalistic account of human thinking.

First I would like to commend the excellent review of this book by CT Dreyer in which he correctly shows how Hume extended the empiricism of Locke and Berkeley to the point where skepticism seemed our only honest way of thinking about our knowledge of the world. Hume's questioning of induction, of how we can be sure tomorrow will be like today , his questioning of how we can trust our senses to know the outside world, his questioning of how we can hold our world logically together when analysis reveals that there is no necessary connection between ' cause' and 'effect' in everyday life action means he wakened not only Kant from his dogmatic slumber but Philosophy itself from the sense that it will provide absolute understanding.
Hume is a very clear writer. I remember reading the famous billiard ball account of causality in which our common sense view of ' before' and ' after' is questioned and taken apart. I believe Hume says after this account, something to the effect and ' still when we leave the room we leave by the door and not by the window'. A friend of mine in this class when the class ended opened the window ( on the ground floor ) and went out that way.
This is difficult and great philosophy. I do not pretend to understand it or its implications fully. A test of the mind and a necessary read for anyone who would know Western Philosophy.

Great! David Grimes has put together a much more intense compilation of Sor's studies than Segovia's Twenty Studies. At a good price too.

I've been playing the guitar for 3 years and this is my favorite music book. The pieces are fine for a near novice. This assumes the ability to read music. My only criticism is that he did not compose for as many voices as other composers. It is only rarely that 4 notes are played at once, but at my skill level, this really isn't much of an issue.

This Sor study book is great. Unlike other study books that concentrate on repeats of specific techniques, the study book incorporates studies that are melodic and classical and entertaining. It is a refreshing 'other' way to develop guitar skills. For the pure technical aspects that do not necessarily incorporate song style melodies, I also have Carcassi's complete methods for the guitar. It's good that I purchased them both together as I like to alternate between them during my practise sessions.

This compilation is organized by Opus and provides a complete set of the Sor studies. It is easy to navigate if you are familiar with the organization of these works or read Grimes' brief introduction. The spiral binding is a huge asset missing in so many music books. It sits on the stand open to any page obligingly, and turning pages is easy! That practicality, alone, makes the Mel Bay series a cut above most of the others.

Grimes has complied an excellent and usable resource for classical guitarists. As a true teacher of guitar, Grimes, divides his book into practical and progressive sections from beginner to advanced. Grimes also uses his book in conjunction with Pujol's Guitar School to hone a student's understanding of theory and technique.

This is a great book. The photography is beautiful. The explanations are clear. It's all very well done.

I am sorry to see that this title is out of print. "Color and Light In Nature" is a wonderful look at the ways that light touches us everyday. I recommend this title for Directors of Photography as well as anyone captivated by light.

After reading this book, you will never look at the sky or the sea in the same way again. Accompanied by beautiful photographs, including some rare sights in the sky, the book systematically covers atmospheric phenomena related to light and colour. For photographers it's a great book that will help you understand light effects in nature. The book is resplendent in the spirit of science: the topics are classified by the type of explanation for them: shadows, reflection, refraction and so on. This makes perfect, natural sense and really holds the book together. Some of the explanations include modest equations, tables and so on, but the text is always lively and readable. If you're scared of mathematics, buy it for the pictures. But be warned: this book will inspire you to go to Antarctica, chase solar eclipses, buy a telescope, and demand a window seat on every plane you fly for the rest of your life.

A wonderful book illustrating and describing numerous natural optical effects. Simply a must have on your shelf to whip out whenever something unusual plays out in your field of view. Entertaining to just take down and read as well.

This book is intended for people who are intrigued or awed by the way light is expressed in nature. It describes many natural phenomena involving light, including shadows, the color of the sky, clouds, mirages, halos, rainbows, the effects of ice in the atmosphere and much more. The intended audience in my eyes consists mainly of people who like physics but the beautiful color full-page pictures and tips on taking them also make this book a great resource for anyone interested in photography. Even physics students can benefit from this book (although it is intended for laymen, so no equations are used) - the book shows them interesting manifestations of optics in nature. The book also makes a nice gift for people who enjoy nature and would like to know how it "works". Highly recommended!

I was slightly disappointed with this book, as it is really a compendum of Gifford's previous books: "A Good Man To Know," "The Phantom Father." "Wyoming," "The Stars Above Veracruz." There is very little that is actually new here. It's semi-autobiographical memoir about his childhood growing up in the south and mid-west in the absence of his father (who died when he was 12). Having said that, I liked the stories here all the same, as I am an avid Gifford reader. Reading these stories a second (or third time in my case) reminds me what a genius he is.

Most enjoyable! On a recent road trip, a friend and I listened to the entire 2-CD recording and put many a mile behind us while absorbed in the growing-up experiences of Roy, a kid in 1950s-era Chicago. People are what they are in Roy's world -- no apologies, just the facts, and Roy is watching every move. As the stories take Roy from age five to 17, what he observes and expeirences is sometimes sad; sometimes it's hilarious. It's told in Mr. Gifford's clean and direct style, and in a way that's unsentimental but essentially kind. If, as other reviewers have said, this book repeats material that is in other books (much of it autobiographical, it would seem), this is the one to get. Or maybe it's time to hear them in this context, where each story stands on its own, and at the same time all are linked in tone and chronology to form a single narrative.
Some authors are better than others at reading their own work aloud, and Barry Gifford is one of the good ones. He avoids putting an emotional spin on the material, in keeping with the unjudgmental way the stories are written. Instead, his calm, matter-of-fact tone lets the listener decide how to think about the stories.
The production is seamless. One thing I'm really curious about is the snippets of wonderful music beween the stories. They are most evocative and my friend and I agreed we'd like to hear a compilation of the complete songs. The liner notes say it's all original music from producer Oscar Bucher, so next I'll have to find some of his recordings.

I've been a fan of Barry Gifford's work since I was introduced to the beautiful "Wyoming" and "The Phantom Father" some years back. Both of these had a tone and tenderness I don't come across very often, though I read a lot of new fiction. Gifford's new collection, "Memories from a Sinking Ship", was just released this year, and if you liked the two earlier books, you'll be happy to slip back into Gifford's childhood world of 1940's and 50's America. As far as I know, this is the first time an audiobook of Gifford reading his stories has been released, but it's a great companion to the novel. For people familiar with the stories, it's a real treat to have, and if you're new to them, this is a unique introduction.

Memories from a Sinking Ship
Wyoming
Phantom Father: A Memoir
The Stars Above Veracruz
The Rooster Trapped in the Reptile Room: A Barry Gifford Reader

This collection of Barry Gifford's stories from his "Memories from a Sinking Ship," is a perfect introduction to Gifford's work and a must for his many fans. The double CD, excellently produced by Oscar Blucher, has Gifford reading his own work, a treat since we can hear the nuances of tone and timing and the continual dead pan humor straight from the author's mouth. The stories were always alive but now they seem almost to have been made to have been read aloud. Of all of Gifford's books, this is the best. We follow Gifford's alter-ego Roy as he attempts to grow up in a world that Frank Sinatra would have been perfectly at home in- gangsters, ballpayers, blues singers, hip hotels, Chicago, New Orleans, Havana, Miami, Key West, a world of loneliness, violence, and surprising tenderness. ("Say hello to Mr.[i.e. Meyer] Lansky, Roy.") Between driving around the country with his mother as she goes from one boyfriend to another, Roy sometimes attends school, but his education comes mostly from other arenas, movie theaters, hotel lobbies, Wrigley Field, cheap paperbacks and classic novels- Ernie Banks and Ernie Hemingway. Joseph Conrad and Joseph Cotten. In paintings from the middle-ages children are portrayed as miniature adults and Roy is treated this way by the adults in the stories. They confide in him, speak to him like an adult, and are forever leaving him waiting alone in theaters and hotel lobbies or at his grandma's rat infested house, while they go off to their crooked businesses and assignations. Yet somehow we see that Roy is going to make it out of this world, he will grow up on his own, and all these crazy and violent and touching street people will become a rich source of characters and life experiences for him (and perhaps for his stories if, like Gifford, he becomes a writer.) Gifford began by telling Chicago stories and we have reason to be grateful that he has come full circle, for, to paraphrase T.S. Eliot, now he knows the place for the second time. He's an excellent reader as well as writer and all I can say is: Move over Nelson Algren, Barry Gifford is back in town.

Faber and Faber would KILL to have written this book instead. Excellent analysis of modern noir genius. If you want to learn Lynch in-depth, BUY THIS BOOK.

Blows Faber and Faber's Lynch on Lynch away. Far superior in every single way. A must have for all film/TV/Lynch fans. Heck, possibly a must-have for all Americans!

Nice analysis of David's earlier works. Fantastic, but not nearly as wonderous and magical as the Faber and Faber published "Lynch on Lynch". Now that's somethin' else. Cheers, Big Ears!

Excellent Images of pathologies. Expensive but worth the money.

If you've seen the second edition, this edition is a big improvement, with much better coverage of CT and MR. It's an excellent book both for radiology residents and practicing radiologists, who are looking for a single-volume text which is both readable, and sufficiently comprehensive to use as a reference. Top-notch.

Most comprehensive and manageable text on chest imaging. Covers all aspects from plain film to newer modalities. A Must for any busy department.

I bought this after getting really frustrated with the kaplan book. This package has a couple of great features. It has complete books for all three sections, which means it's way more thorough than an all-in-one book. Some people like power score, but they have one glaring omission - no Reading Comp book! Not to mention that this package is cheaper than buying all the PS books.

Anyway, the best part about this is that it really makes a lot of sense and has tons of examples. I liked the timed quizzes on each topic. These books skip the gimmicky tricks that don't really work anyway and focus on pure understanding of how the test works. I think they really get it right. After buying this and some past official tests, my scores on practice tests improved by about 12 points.

Very thorough and detailed review! I've read through pretty much every LSAT prep book and I would say that these are even better than PowerScore books. They cover details and distinctions that no other LSAT book does. Obviously the Official LSAT tests are necessary, but when it comes to actually analyzing the question types and methodology, I would say these books are likewise necessary!

great teaching of ILD / high-res CT.
amazing charts with differentials.

highly, highly recommend!!

great teaching for ILD, patterns on high - res CT.
charts w/ differentials are outstanding.

highly, highly recommend.

I Just finished reading this book and Love it! I like how the author used fictional stories to take us through the criminal justice system. There are many aspects of the courts that most people don't learn unless they have experienced them, this way you learn like you have beed there. I will recommend it to everyone!

This is an excellent and innovative textbook. Instead of just teaching you about concepts, the author has actually incorporated the concepts into entertaining stories. So, instead of just reading about the courtroom work group or challenges in court, you get to see these concepts in action as you read stories about key courtroom players (lawyers, judges, defendants, etc...). Each key vocabulary word is put in bold so that you can recognize it when you read it. In addition the words, not the definitions, are listed again at the end of the chapter, just in case you missed one. I am graduating this summer, so this is one of my final classes. I have never enjoyed a textbook so much. I wish all textbooks were written in this manner. It has been a tremendous way for me to learn and has helped me to retain information. I highly recommend this book to any criminal justice teacher who is looking for a refreshing change or interesting addition to their classroom or to anyone who has an interest in just exactly what goes on inside the criminal courts.