HTML Books

American Palestine: Melville, Twain, and the Holy Land Mania is a strong and insightful study that sheds light on an important geographic-cultural landscape that shapes American culture. By focusing on the ideological construction of late Nineteenth-century Palestine in the American imagination, Obenzinger shows that this imagination contains much more than meets the eye of those who only look at the domestic spaces of Melville and Twain. Both writers traveled to Palestine, and the texts they produced about these experiences have been deeply and intimately related to their perceptions of, and contributions to, U.S. national culture, which has been obsessed, as the book so persuasively shows, with images and beliefs about "the Holy Land." Obenzinger writes beautifully about Melville's melancholic and Twain's humorous treatment of Palestine and its significance for U.S. culture.

Vanity of vanities. I am writing a review of my own review.
But I am not really writing a review of the review but rather trying to understand why I feel this book of Oz is a great work. Why I feel it gives so much. And what I believe the reviewer's job is in writing of such a book.
1) Describe what the book is about
2) Explain why it is so special. What makes it great.
3) Convey the enthusiasm and deep feeling you have for the book. I was tremendously moved in many places of Oz's book.
4)Convey honestly the reservations you have in the book while underlining its strengths.
5) This book is a remarkable telling of a family history in pre- state Israel( then Palestine) It sees the world through the eyes of a growing child. It gives a panoramic view of the society, but a most intense and deeply felt - view of the main characters, parents and family. It in a sense tells the story of pre- World War Two European and Palestinian Jewry.
6) It is in effect ' a history of the Feeling of those times' and a set of inner histories of the various characters.
7) Jokingly I want to say , in the words of the Camus character, the would be writer rewriting endlessly the first sentence about the Bois de Bouloungne " Hats off, Amos Oz"
This man done it -yes he did he done it he done done it he done it -he dah greatest.

The best article ever written about ancestor worship and identity focusing on ritual, interpretation, and social normalization in the Malaysian Chinese Community.

I have recommended it to every single person with whom I am currently acquainted and roused ex-girlfriends from their guilty slumbers to extoll the virtue of Dr. Clarke's triumphant prose.

Hi, i ain't finish yet.
(Please, won't Thou help: "Where can i send Thou the true certificate for"?, i ain't strong, etc. wealfty enough myself; i wish of get them away from my home; will Thou please not help?

i now will delete such private adresh of mine, which i gave Thou, such not any other arts try of stealing, right.

Hi Truely Angela,
i never need of anylies, though difenitely i do néver converse any Truth direction any art of demonic not vegetarian being.

Do not let any art seperate Thouself away myself éver again, without Thou own ordernary objective original private sign for myself only.
Florida i do like; new york i'm little afraid of.

If Thou still are interesteing in root connection without any caple arts involveings: "Make here Thou Glad Natural Vegetarian move". They sometimes delete my private mail inbox.
They turn on & off, ye such sooth them.(bold idiots!)
Thours.

Hie, The Best Most Beautiful Female being-humen being actresh, August 12, 2006

Dear Angela,
Nowday or latest next day, i will release Thou for Thouself; an tiny objective pleasant i'd like of Give for Thouself; Thou know such is Thour month right.
Kindliest regards zipcode, is:
Now remember of delete these original details & bring such for Thou own private mailbox.
They're talking Her, such i can not ground any hounest grounding via Her photo alone here.
i Need groundtet presant Gladnesh dayli', right.
Ye Best among women, how do i get an change of feeling Truely near of Herself, when i cannot reach Her. Her said Her want the Certificate via Mrs., etc. originals papers.
For such, i dó need an ordernary objective mail adresh, which such i can send above for Thou, right?
If Thou can help herself objective only; they try of hunting(kannibalism)
Thou gotta being little more realistic presant, caust they really try of fatamogan Both of Thou, away from True Ground.

Confidential classified, Friday, 17th of august, 2006,

See Prettiest... i have an original Certificate via an Mrs., i have original pashport ye photo, ye 3 other original legally Certificates; just i can not copy & send above Certificates via these review pages here. Such i need an original mailadreh. i want Thou of help with these papers for Tina, ye for Thouself.
Will Thou do such Thou really Prettiest Female?

About Tina Herself, i néver seen such an Beautiful Truely Sun which i did reconalizeing my own root within via many 100red of thousands life. About 11.000thousands life, we got seperated caust of cabelbold earshutclockwatcher's.
Thours Objective Loveing.
Ph.Country area, is:(45).

Thursday, 16th of august, 2006.
Thou have such month here, Thou own Birthday-Sun in Thou own Heart must herefore not vanish. Stay Glad carefully.
i delete my private ph.no., gesh Thou have being seen what i did write for Thouself now...

Dearest Angela Thouself ónly,
I little later from now, can give Thou an Glad individual integration, such Thou not dependent for give áll of Thouself away for others only. STILL I AIN'T FINISH YET.
Might Thou think i smoke cigarets now..Well i don't.
i'm an adult Female(i do not belongs via any fanclub, or any others!)
i prefere Veganic not smoke.ing, not drugs of any arts of all. i live private anonym life for myself, via Vejle of Jütland from dk., i ain't criminel, & i do not any lies! i hate any sm feelings.
my mail is: notufos@yahoo.co.in

Stay Glad Truely for Thouself; can Thou send an mail?
i wish of stay via equal Country of Herself, nomatter where.
Thours Hounesty(1964), difference is 4 days after mine,compared of Her own birth date.

I found this article to be an invaluable aid. Mr. Ciszczon demonstrates a mastery of the subject.

An informative piece that is a must read for anybody that wants to know about summary procedure in Florida.

I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.

PHYSICS--Aristotle addresses the "why" questions. Aetia= causes, there are 4 causes. Only 1 cause actually sounds what like we call a cause today. A better translation is "explanation." 4 ways to explanations. Arche=origins/principles, something that is 1st, or rule, or, commanding, or beginning. Thus 1st thought that leads us to understand something and how we proceed. Begin how we think and rule or govern how we think. Phusis= "nature," like physics. He understands nature differently than we do today. For Aristotle the planets orbits never change so not part of nature. Everything below the moon, "lunar," is nature. Thus everything below lunar is not perfect and goes through change. Phusis root= to grow or bloom. Thus, emerging like birth. This term has to do with movement and change. Also connected to "coming to light." Also, connected to "being."

Physics (nature) is an arche (rule) of motion and change. Concept of physics (nature) has to do with motion and change. Paramedes denies change. Aristotle takes umbrage with this. Plato says change is a deficient condition; Aristotle is against both men's notion of change.
IMPORTANT--Aristotle talks about how we talk about how we talk about change all the time. Aristotle says no such things as "being" itself. For Aristotle there is change we always talk about it.

Potentiality and actuality- 2 terms that dominate Aristotle's thinking. Change is potentiality to actuality. Potentiality is a "not yet." He criticizes premises of philosophers for denying or denigrating change. His physics is his thought to explain change. Ousia can't mean something unchanging, it is always a changing phenomena. For Aristotle and the Greeks the "world" has no beginning or end it is always here. No God or creator. Big and small are opposites, but are only conceptual. Small things become big Aristotle sees this. Our language is the guide here. The fact that there is change doesn't mean it is chaotic, you plant a seed, and it grows from small to big, this is normal change.

3 senses Aristotle uses phusis or nature. IMPORTANT- 1. "Always or for the most part." 2. Telos-end, purposes. 3. Movement is self-generated toward something. When a seed falls to the ground it grows and moves towards growing. Contrast Phusis with techne="produce something by humans." Both have to do with change and movement. 1 is self-moving, 1 is moved by us. Trees are not brought into being by themselves; beds out of trees are made by us. What is a bed? For Aristotle it has no nature or physics, it can have an essence. Everything other than Techne "things of production" are physics, nature. It is natural that humans have productive capacity and skills. Techne and physics are distinguished to understand change. Aristotle is important in philosophy and science because he uses language of science. He sees that change is internal within phusis in their own nature, not from myth or storytelling.

His phenomenology says our primary access to things is the "whole" like a dog, once we analyze them we can break them down. This is different from the premises of philosophers who believed in "inarticulate wholes." This is a dramatic difference from Platonists and atomists ideas. Atomist says all things made up of individual stuff like atoms. Aristotle is against atomist doesn't accept describing atoms as real. Like atomist the "whole" or dog is real for him. He isn't a Darwinist because the earth is always the way it was, is and will be. He talks about elements earth, fire, water, air.

IMPORTANT- For Aristotle, "being" of a thing comes 1st, knowledge 2nd. He says knowledge comes to rest in the soul. The soul is calmed by knowledge. When the soul or the mind comes to rest this is out of a natural turbulence of the mind. When he says "by nature" it is intrinsic in us we are by nature turbulent like children, this is part of us. Knowledge achieves calming it emerges out of the turbulence like "wonder."

Techne and physics are not opposites they are distinct different ways to explain movement. Both parts of our world can illuminate each other. He doesn't have idea of a creator God but understands if their were nature it would come by way of god. He says nature is self-manifesting. Techne completes nature (physics) Art doesn't quite imitate nature but talking about shapes like a bed or cave like a house. More like impersonates nature. Craft or Techne our natural capacity to make things, we are elated by being able to craft we do have to be taught to produce things. When we build houses, we are completing something nature can't do. Today, modern science rejects idea "nature" has a purpose. Thus, Aristotle doesn't see physics, nature and techne craft as that different.

Aitia=Causes better definition is "explanation."

1. Material Cause, answers question "out of what"
2. Formal Cause, answers question "into what"
3. Efficient Cause, answers question "from what"
4. Final Cause, answers question "for what, or toward what"

Qua= Latin for "as." We understand something by questions we ask. He uses ordinary language. This arms us with information to look at whatever phenomena by deduction. Fill in the 4 causes and categories and then you have knowledge.

IMPORTANT- Most important is #2 the Formal cause. Efficient and Final cause fall under it. Usually he uses artifacts crafted by man to explain this. Example of a house:

1.Material Cause, answers question "out of what" Wood
2.Formal Cause, answers question "into what" A certain shape of house
3.Efficient Cause, answers question "from what" the builder
4.Final Cause, answers question "for what, or toward what" to provide shelter

Things of phusis can be explained by 4 causes a little tricky. Form isn't just shape for Aristotle.
He uses different works for form, like logos = ordering, or pattern, or structure, in this case, organization in living things it is richer our bodies are our being cause. A corpse is no longer organized for a functioning body. Same with material cause. Aristotle distinguishes between wood or real matter and less tangible, he uses idea of material cause thus doesn't just mean stuff like matter. Thus, in his book Politics, what is the material of the polis? The citizens. Material is just a way to explain it. The word matter works like "What subject matter are you taking"? Thus, Aristotle uses matter in the rich and varied linguistic way. Thus, he provides guides and 4 categories and causes to gain knowledge. He thinks his approach is an improvement over Plato and pre-Socratics like materialists.

IMPORTANT- Everything is what it is in combination of matter and form in the world except God. There is a difference between dogs and beds, thus he is against the atomists. If you don't know what a cake is ahead of time you don't ever get to the molecular structure to get you there. To talk about matter without form is to miss something. Any 4 causes alone doesn't work, all together give an apt account of how things are. Modern science breaks with him on #4 the Final cause; scientists say this doesn't exist in nature.

For Aristotle, if it is evident and real in nature it must be real. The Telos shouldn't be understood as "push pull." Understanding can shift based on different issues and topics so Aristotle is a "pluralist." Never think of telos, or end, or purpose as "design." Not all forms of telos are "conscious design" for Aristotle. There is no intelligent design of nature for Aristotle. (No God). He rejects it, no beginning, or end of nature. However, he believes nature has purposeful elements to it, so it is mind like. Therefore, when we think purposefully we are not violating nature. We are rational animals. There is no mind before or behind nature. For Aristotle idea of telos is built into nature. Aristotle's idea of an unmoved, mover is archaic. He believes that movement in nature must ultimately come to stop, can't go to infinity, thus unmoved mover. This is his idea of God. Doesn't mean first cause or creator but more a "draw" not a "push" like draw of a lover. Thus, he doesn't believe in universal laws of motion. This is a limitation in his philosophy.

IMPORTANT-Basic distinction between matter and form, form has efficient and final cause as subsets. Matter and form are separable in analysis but not in reality. Two sides of the same coin, always present together. You can't have a sculpture without matter like clay. Aristotle criticizes Plato and others for delinking form and matter. Form isn't just shape, form is structure and organization. Corpse has same shape as a human but Aristotle says, "The form is gone in the corpse" so form is more than shape. Matter is unknowable; form gives us something that we can gain knowledge with, example a hunk of clay vs. a bowl.

Bottom line of modern physics and science is math, Newton, Kant, etc. said this. Thus, H2O is proportions of elements. A "towards which" is not a phenomena to examine. Here he is saying math is legitimate form of knowledge but it is not primary way or status of understanding how things are. Natural motion has nothing to do with line and math, etc. for Aristotle. One can't explain natural motion with math. We never come across geometric shapes in nature. Form is natural phenomena but different from mathematical form. Thus, you can't understand nature by math, as primary knowledge only secondary. For Plato, math is real for Aristotle they only help explain nature.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy. Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.

Arab states have been at war with Israel for quite a while. And part of that war effort is an economic boycott.

As the author explains, U.S. regulations prohibit American companies from complying in such a boycott (by agreeing to or actually refusing to do business in Israel or with a blacklisted company, agreeing to or actually discriminating against other persons based on race, religion, sex, national origin, or nationality, agreeing to or actually furnishing information about business relationships in Israel or with blacklisted companies, or agreeing to or actually furnishing information about the race, religion, sex, or national origin of another person). The intent of these regulations is to prevent U.S. firms from being used to implement foreign policies of other nations which run counter to U.S. policy.

That does not mean that we don't get requests from Arab countries to break the law here! We got over 1200 of them in the year 2006 alone. Five were from Egypt, and three were from Jordan, nations which have peace treaties with Israel.

Enforcement of the boycott is sporadic, and enforcement of U.S. anti-boycott legislation does not appear to be too strong either: less than a hundred thousand dollars were collected by the U.S. in fines of nine companies in 2006, and less than sixty thousand dollars in fines for five cases in 2005.

Still, I think the boycotts are not going to help the cause of peace and cooperation. In addition, I think we Americans ought to make a strong effort to get nations to stop excluding Israel from international events. Israel has never been a participant in the Mediterranean Games, and I think that's an area where nations could show that they are not averse to peace by simply treating Israelis as human beings.

I recommend this report.

There are three academic personalities involved here. Morton Smith, now dead, was the teacher of both Jacob Neusner and Shaye Cohen. In this review of Neusner's book-length destruction of Morton Smith, Shaye Cohen provides the history of Neusner's relationship with Smith; and in a footnote, the history of his own more favorable relationship with Smith. I am agnostic about Smith; several articles by him are top-drawer. Other works, such as his 1945 dissertation, are, as Neusner declares vindictively, not really the best. Nevertheless, reading past the venom of Neusner's book, and reading Shaye Cohen's review of it, together provide a sense of the topic for a book that is out of print and rarely available.

For the unwary reader, let me say that not Morton Smith, nor Jacob Neusner, nor Shaye Cohen, is known for the kindness with which their critiques are phrased. Smith and Cohen, however, generally did not display the vindictive vituperation in print that often has characterized Neusner. When well-edited, a book of Neusner's has passages of sudden illumination that clarify the religious activity of rabbinic Judaism. When left without an editor, as in preparing a book as camera-ready copy, he allows his work to go to press without proofreading and without exercising even limited control, judgment, or thought for consequences.

This last, the lack of thought for the consequences of his words as works in print, is obvious in his ARE THERE TANNAITIC PARALLELS TO THE GOSPELS?, which I have also read. Shaye Cohen's review briefly clarifies the relationship between Morton Smith and Jacob Neusner, which I found helpful. Cohen then critically evaluates Neusner's claims about a central portion of Smith's dissertation, on the synoptic character of the Mishnah (ca. 210) and Tosefta (unknown date). Cohen's central point is that Neusner mistakes the relationship between Mishnah and Tosefta when he terms the Tosefta an elaboration and commentary on the Mishnah. Cohen demonstrates, with examples from Neusner, the complex relationship that actually obtains between the two texts. He is not as convincing, perhaps because he is being brief, in rehabilitating Smith's description of the Mishnah and Tosefta as "synoptic" works which relied at points on the same shared material.

Because Smith's initiative in disowning Neusner as his student is very well known, this review, which rehabilitates Smith, is a welcome reconsideration. Do we need critical reviews of Neusner's other works of vituperation? I know some more recently active scholars who hope that Neusner takes their work as a target, because his negative attention will count as positive attention in the rest of the scholarly world.

Behind TANNAITIC PARALLELS TO THE GOSPELS, Smith's book, and the Cohen and Neusner evaluations, lies the figure of Smith himself. His stature is attested by the scholars he has parented, for no scholar of the ancient world springs full-grown in understanding by the scholar's own efforts, but rather by the continued attention and correction of someone who is already a first-rank scholar. Thus, we should judge Smith by those scholars he has brought into existence.

I read these works for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.
Definition of Rhetoric- capacity of persuasion. Plato is critical of the Rhetoric and the tragic poetry. Rhetoric is approach to political public speeches in the forum. Plato thought that they clouded the mind and thus created a part of his critique of democracy in general. Plato thinks Socrates was killed by rhetoric used by the Athenian democracy. Plato feared the danger of democracy. Poetry appeals to the base human emotions rhetoric, and poetry block rational truth according to Plato. Rhetoric is psychological force of language vs. logical force of language. Psychology leads people to believe things based on emotions. Speech must appeal to the masses in a democracy. Psychology is persuasion, logic is truth. Deduction and induction is arguing logically. Plato says rhetoric is not a technç, (craft) nor is poetry, because they are undisciplined and not uniform in design. Thus, appeal to psychology and emotion can never be done away with in a democracy, thus Plato abhors them and democracy. Plato calls it sophistry this psychological appeal and democracy requires this to exist, so the problem persists. Plato is clear and consistent in his abhorrence of sophistry and democracy.

Aristotle's Rhetoric and Poetics are an alternative to Plato. Aristotle's rhetoric tries to strike a middle position. Aristotle says rhetoric and poetry are a technç, the Rhetoric is a handbook. Aristotle says speaker needs to appeal to appropriate information for the particular setting. Much like a lawyer's argument, not just relying on facts, need to appeal to people's emotions. Aristotle does understand that rhetoric can be used in a harmful way.

Aristotle lays out three features in rhetoric:
1. Ethos= character of the speaker, also charisma, speaker earns the audience's trust, use of body language.
2. Pathos= condition of the hearer.
3. Logos= essential bearing on political persuasion, truth.

Thus, Plato's concern by definition excludes speech because it deals with emotion. These three conditions must be in play for a speech to be successful. The rhetoric contains a detailed analysis of the different human emotions and how to elicit them in a speech. Aristotle knows the speaker must be a good student of human nature to tap into human emotions.

Epistçmç is scientific knowledge. Phronçsis is the capacity of the soul for using education, experience and habit all this is in the ethics. This is the same in political world so politics is not an episteme no scientific reasoning. The things that come up in politics are not deduced scientifically. In politics, humans use deliberation between several possible outcomes unlike math where there is only one correct answer. Political speech is contentious because the nature of politics is contentious.

There are two circumstances in rhetoric.
1. Judicial rhetoric has to do with the past like in a court case.
2. Deliberative rhetoric has to do with the future, what decision should we make in political policies.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy. Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.