Owens Books

I haven't had time for more than a brief review of both volumes, but since our family from Derrylehan, Donegal, is descended from the O'Daughertaighs of Inshowen, this work is a treasure of infomation of which I have long known but now for the first time have had access to in an excellent translation. I have traced all references to the O'Dohertys in both volumes, but have not yet had time to trace the grandmother's McMahans of Fermanaugh. These books are a big help to anyone wanting to understand the culture of Ireland from the 11th to the 17th century.

A very impressive work, in 2 volumes, hardbound, with four color frontis and the almost forgotten original map of Irish Family locations. The fold out map is about 20 x 25 and is the best of the genre. The Annals by the Four Masters are perhaps the most noted source in Irish history and this was the first translation into English (1846). The formal text is complete from the 12th to the 17th century. In addition, the annotations cover Irish history from the earliest times. We have been waiting for this edition to be published ! (note that Connellans translation preceeded that of O'Donovan.) Helpful index to the old map has been added for the first time. These Annals are in the English language. A few pages have some age markings on them from the original, and it remains a magnificent set of books. All in all, this is one of a kind, with a distinctive color frontis, some celtic lettering, and a map that has been out of print for over 150 years . If you have been waiting for the Annals as we have,
this is a real treat. Connellan, was a leading gaelic scholar, and this first ever translation laid the groundwork for all that would follow in the field.

Gradations of Being was edited from the papers of Joseph Owens. Some fifty years after his groundbreaking book The Doctrine of Being in the Aristotelian Metaphysics, Owens turned again to consider the central themes in Aristotle's conception of a science of being or "first philosophy." Reflecting on a half-century of scholarship, and drawing on his own extensive publications in Greek and medieval philosophy, Owens sets forth in a step-by-step meticulous argument his own interpretation of Aristotle's account of substance, essence, and the gradations
of being. Owens writes extensively of the different but complementary approaches of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. He discusses the many facets of the Aristotelian notion of "form," including its role in a realistic epistemology.

This monograph, edited by Owens's colleague and former pupil, Lloyd P. Gerson, includes a complete bibliography of Owens's writings as well as works critical of Owens's readings of ancient and medieval philosophers. It will serves as an excellent introduction to one of the most influential interpretations of the Aristotelian metaphysical tradition of the past century.

Joseph Owens, C.Ss.R., was professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Toronto and professor emeritus at the Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies. Among his many books are: The Doctrine of Being in the Aristotelian Metaphysics (Pontifical Institute, 1951), A History of Ancient Western Philosophy (Appleton-Century- Crofts, 1959), An Elementary Christian Metaphysics (Bruce, 1963, reprint Center for Thomistic Studies 1985), and An Interpretation of Existence (Bruce, 1968). Owens was also the author of numerous works on medieval philosophy, especially on the thought of Thomas Aquinas. He died in 2005.

Lloyd P. Gerson is professor of philosophy at the University of Toronto. He is the author of books and articles on ancient philosophy, most recently, Knowing Persons: A Study in Plato (Oxford, 2003), Neoplatonic Philosophy: Introductory Readings (with John Dillon) (Hackett, 2004), and Aristotle and Other Platonists (Cornell, 2004).

I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.
Topic of Metaphysics is Ousia=substance and being. What is the meaning of being? With respect to matter and form, it is primarily about form. Analytically both can be separate and distinct, but not in reality. One can analyze matter by potentiality and actuality. Matter can't answer the question of being without form. Some natural things are always a composite of matter and form, it is the answer to the question of what is ousia or being in nature. Matter by itself can't give us the answer to what a thing is.

Ousia=substance and being. Ousia= Being is the "this" spoken of in primary ousia. This is contrary to Plato. Categories vs. Metaphysics. We can talk of the "being" as quality as "not white." Being spoken of in many ways but only of one thing, i.e., "the focal being." Word being has flexibility. Other flexible words is essence. (the what it is to be). In Greek for Aristotle, a bed is not an Ousia because it is from techne=craft it can have an essence. Ousia is reserved for material things self manufactured in nature. All things are derived from a primary ousia.
This has to do with focal being, health is such a word. When we talk about different aspects of health, it is not a universal definition like Socrates looks for. Aristotle says you can't find it. Thus, the word "being" is just a word in a sense a focal point like the word health, i.e. healthy skin, healthy food, then there is health, for Socrates what is health. Aristotle says no, health is unity by analogy. Aristotle is OK with using examples. Math is not independent knowledge, it is dependent on things math is not a primary existence. Being is neither a universal nor a genus, (genus is animal in hierarchy). It is as though Aristotle wants to say that the primary meaning of being is the "this" the subject, i.e. Socrates not human all by itself, not animal all by itself.

Ousia= Being is the "this" spoken of in primary ousia. This is contrary to Plato. Categories vs. Metaphysics. "This" is ontologically primary. Ontological= the most general branch of metaphysics, concerned with the nature of being.

In the categories discussion, he doesn't talk about the distinction between matter and form, it comes later on in the Physics and then the Metaphysics. The "this" is ontologically primary in terms of what the "being" something, what something is. Why would it be wrong to say that primary ousia can't be primary from the standpoint of knowledge, it can't be the distinction between ontological and epistemological? Why would it be wrong to say that the "this" the perceptible encounter wouldn't be primary from the standpoint of knowledge? Because, whatever the categories are whatever the notions of say "horse" the "this" is a horse, the "this" is ontologically primary, but it can't be epistemologically primary because a "this" by itself is just a "this" the question "What is this" called a horse is to involve the categories of knowledge. Therefore, from a knowledge standpoint, secondary ousia, which is things like categories and context, they have primacy in knowledge. However, from the standpoint of "being" the perceptible "this" has primacy. This is just a technical way of distancing him from Plato. In the Metaphysics, the question of form is primary Ousia. Ousia =form in Metaphysics. In Metaphysics, the "this" is simply matter. Aristotle did not give up on Ousia as form. This matter and form is never separated for Aristotle, thus a composite of matter and form is in the Metaphysics. In realm of nature, form and matter can't be separated for Aristotle. If you only talk about matter, you have nothing definable. You never come across things without their form. God is only exception to form and matter together.

Ousia as form and essence. The essence of a thing is "what" it is, it gives us knowledge. Definition= essence. Bronze can't be essence of circle, the form is important, not the matter.
Can't use abstract math to explain a human. When it comes to knowledge, we must emphasize the ousia as form. It isn't that first you have material things, and then the mind adds form to it, whatever the particular thing is, it always was that form. Then when we learn about it, we actually just discover what the thing is. Therefore, it is a process of coming to understand the universal, the essence, but that was always there in the thing, it just needed to be done. So what he is emphasizing in the Metaphysics is the idea of ousia as form, as some kind of essence, but never separated from matter!

Ousia --1. Grammatically basic. 2. Ousia As Ontologically basic, something that exists in its own right. The 1st example is how humans speak, the 2nd example is how things really are, both are both side of the same coin.

Principle of Noncontradiction
Arche= principle, beginning and rule. Aristotle thought that this was the firmest of all principles. It is impossible for the same thing to both belong and not to belong to the same thing at the same time to the same thing in the same respect. An important governing thought in Western philosophy. A thing is what it is, it can't be equal to its opposite. Aristotle thought reality was organized this way. It has to do with both knowledge and being. Aristotle states that if this principle is true then it is the firmest of all principles both for knowledge and reality. In the same respect, what does it mean? It shifts depending on circumstances. From standpoint of knowledge and reality principle of noncontradiction is stable. The three factors of the principle are: the same thing, in the same time, in the same respect, is what Aristotle is calling the principle of noncontradiction. In order for knowledge to be reliable, these factors are in play. Can't be going up and down a hill at the same time. 1 of 3 factors has changed, time. A "hill" is both up and down but meaningless unless you think in relation of motion. Aristotle believes when it comes to knowledge and reality the principle of noncontradiction is most basic and most fundamental and evident principle, because without it we can't communicate or think about things. Aristotle explains well how we lead our life by the principle a very pragmatic explanation. This is a principle we live by as humans thus, no one can deny it!
If you talk about change as a potentiality, you have a way of solving the puzzle. This actually serves as a slap at Renee Descartes in the future wondering if he is conscious or in a dream state. All philosophy stems from wonder and puzzlement. Aristotle makes distinction between worthy puzzles or useless ones.

Emphasis between primary and secondary being, Ousia.
For Aristotle Ousia or being is not just a thing, many ways being can be understood. Primary Ousia is things perceptible in nature. Secondary Ousia or being is sometimes being is how we understand things, i.e., big or small, etc, this is how we talk about things. He stretches the way Ousia in many ways. Matter can't be primary being like atomists, nor form alone like Platonists. However, when we analyze beings, we can use secondary being. Idea of "is" or "being" will shift depending on what you are talking about. The term "being" has plurality to it, depending on how we regard it (like using a hammer as a paperweight). Even though Metaphysics emphasizes form, it is "this form." Primary thing is the "this."

He wants to move away from Plato's idea that we can separate matter from form. A things essence is going to be the ultimate answer to the question of what is being. However, a things essence can't be separated from its statement of thing, it is almost as though that this essence is going to mean the definition of a thing, "what it is." Then in some respects, it has the characteristics of a secondary being. If you want to know what is the big deal about the perceptible "this," the primary ousia? Again, and again, the best way you can get a handle on that is he is critiquing Plato! He wants to move away from Plato's idea that it is possible to understand beings apart from the material world. Aristotle does make certain commitments; he makes certain commitments to the idea that the primary sense of being must be used in nature that are evident to us.

The Platonist in Aristotle says if the mind desires and is naturally inclined to pursue knowledge and he gives us a map how does it acquire knowledge. The Platonist in Aristotle says in the Metaphysics that if all there is, is matter and form then there is always an element of elusiveness in things because matter cannot fully deliver how we know things. When he gets to the question of the Divine, he does so because he believes that the natural desire of the mind can know that it will not have a final resting place with respect to just composite things. Especially since these composite things are always changing because nature is the realm of movement and change and the idea of form will at least give us access to how we can know changing things and actuality and potentiality. Changing things will always have this element of excess, beyond the minds capacity to grasp.

His talk of the Divine is the idea that there is something in reality that will satisfy the minds' desire for the ultimate stable resting point. If change were the last word, the mind could never come to rest. This is what Heraclitus argued for, Aristotle didn't like it. He wants to grasp the final. For him the Divine is satisfaction for the mind to grasp reality.
Uber Ousia. Aristotle here is talking about 2 senses of eternity.

1. Endless time.
2. Timelessness. 1st is never begins, never ends this is eternity or infinity. 2nd is in order to understand whole world there has to be something, the unmoved mover.

Ideas of potentiality and actuality criticizes Platonic idea. Potentiality has idea of negation in it. Thus, a thing in nature always has actuality; we are always on the move. Divine is pure form and actuality without matter and potentiality. Ontology now moves to theology. This is his theological science. (Theology in the Metaphysics is speaking about God for Aristotle). In reality, composite of form and matter is always in motion until it ends. Any actualization has potentiality it is prior. Actuality is prior to potentiality; this is his ultimate metaphysical statement. Two ways Aristotle proves this idea. 1st is human reproduction brings us into being. Our parents actually reproduced us. 2nd is God the ultimate sense of actuality prior to potentiality.

Talking about other philosopher's ideas. Hesiod question of the Gods in poetry, night comes before day, thus we don't have access in the "dark" symbolic of precedence of something unknowable, and Aristotle doesn't like it. Thus, for him he has the unmoved mover.
The pure actuality of the Divine is Aristotle's nominee for the principal that explains why there is this movement in the first place. Limitation in nature is matter which is unstable but all things in nature strive to their potential. Thus, you have pure actuality of Divine. God is Prime mover or final cause not efficient cause for Aristotle.

Rational and non-rational potentiality. This is how Aristotle recognizes the phenomenology of human thought. What rational means here is human drama of seeking what might or not work out. Now rational is stable when you heat water it boils no other potentiality. Thus, non-rational movement is very regular. Human reason is precarious we may not use potentiality to reach actuality. When we practice medicine, it might not work out.

Theoria=contemplation. There are three kinds of ousia, all are a study of secondary ousia in some way.

1. Physics-study of material and moveable.
2. Mathematical-study of ousia that is non-moving, (1+1=2 always), but is derived from matter.
3. Theology is study of ousia that is non-moving and non-material.

This is scheme of understanding the nature of understanding something. 3rd level is big for Aristotle. 1st two levels have limitations to them. We begin from wonder (ignorance) philosophy is to illuminate wonder with answers. He doesn't deny Greek deities but the way poets depict them is deficient.

Movement is a way of understanding change we see this in the Physics. Movement is actualization of potential. Psuche=soul which is the word he uses for life. Things in nature that are alive. Soma=body. Plato separates soul from body, Aristotle doesn't. Aristotle's text De Anima is on "The Soul" is a philosophical biological treatise. We have three-part soul, plant, animal and human all are part of this.

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.

M.Owen Lee, Classicist and Wagner fan, here combines and brilliantly sums up in a short monongraph the essence of a life long devotion and study. Owen, who for many decades gave the intermission talks on the Texaco broadcasts of the Met - see First Intermissions: Commentaries from the Met Revised and Enlarged Edition here focuses his attention on the imaginative and remakable way Wagner in his mature music dramas reconceived and developed the dramatic theater of classic 5th Century BC Athenian Greece, and most particularly, the dramatic world of Aeschylus.

The highpoint of this book is Lee's gift for recreating the original presentation of Aeschylus' great trilogy, the Orestia. The first half of the book, largely centered around Lee's marvelous 'you are there' presentation, starts off with an evocative verbal orchestrating of the premiere of Aeschylus first of three new plays to be given back to back throughout the morning. As the theater-goers settle down in pre-dawn darkness the play begins with the announcement of the night watchman, and the sudden highly dramatic blazing forth of a signal torch above and behind the audience, thus beginning the play, Agamemnon. By the time Lee finishes his re-telling your conception of Wagner's Ring Cycle will never be quite the same. Over and over Lee opens up new perspectives, new links, through his own insights into just how powerfully Wagner's massive artistic vision and final creation was based on the great plays of Athen's first - and to Wagner - greatest playwright.

What' so wonderful about this very short work - it's barely 87 pages long without the notes - is Lee's gift for making the complex understandable.
Anyone fearing another heavy-handed overwrought book on Wagner need not worry: this is one of the pithiest and most delightful examples of writing on Wagner I've yet encountered. How Lee can take such serious artists as the center of his book and pull off so eminently accessible a book, one achieving such profoundity with such clarity, is as miraculous as the cooking of a great chef. Lee propounds the fundamental connections between Wagner and his great Greek dramatic predecessor with greater assurance and certainty than anyone else has yet done.

If you are a huge Wagner fan this book will be an eye-opener! Not to be missed.

Athena Sings Wagner And The Greeks by academician and musicologist M. Owen Lee is an informed and deftly written introduction to how ancient Hellenic culture and art influenced the compositions of work of Richard Wagner. Examining the origin and soul of great music with scholarly depth, Athena Sings Wagner And The Greeks is a refreshing study and dissection of the melding and interplay between narrative and fluid ideals which is enthusiastically recommended for students and scholars of European classical music in general, as well as the non-specialist general reader with an interest in Wagnerian productions in particular.

I'd had this book on my bookshelf for many years, having bought it after seeing an excellent review. But I never seemed to get around to reading it - perhaps it would be hard going, a harrowing tale ... Finally, I picked it up. It's an amazing read - you really get to know Keenan, and his companion for much of his incarceration, John McCarthy, and what's more his captors too. (The American hostages they spend time with are less well drawn in many cases) How could we cope in this situation? Keenan tells us exactly how he and McCarthy made it through - nearly five years in his case; more than five for McCarthy. Occasionally, Keenan veers towards becoming a little too cerebral about it all, but then pulls back, leaving us which much to mull over about the strength but also sheer honesty of this man. One of those books where you finish feeling like you have really come to know someone - perhaps more than you know the people in your own life. I closed the book (a little surprised at where it ended ... I wanted more ... but that's Brian) and immediately sought up to date information about Keenan -- to discover that he only recently returned to Lebanon for the first time (see the Times Online, March 08, to complete the journey after you've read the book).

Keenan takes the reader from the heady, exciting, politically influenced atmosphere of Belfast during the troubles to the not too disimilar atmosphere of Beirut. While I do not wish to demean Belfast, it is a city where you need to be careful and on your guard. I know, I have been there many times. (For the love of a beautiful Irish girl, I met on holiday many years ago.)

Keenan relaxes a little bit too much one day and finds himself kidnapped by a fundamentalist group who by all accounts, don't really know what it is they actually wish to demand, and who it is they wish to demand it from.

So you find yourself turning page after page (rather quickly) wondering when the hell the poor man is going to be released.
A wonderful frank, vulgar, blunt, violent account of a horror, none of us mere mortals could ever imagine.

This book centres around Wolf, a boy whose father was a Briton, brought to Rome as a slave in the 6th century, and set free by Pope Gregory. Pope Gregory had a concern for the propagation of the Gospel among the "heathen" Saxons in Britain, so he sent a group of monks, led by Augustine, to Britain. Wolf and his father go with them. They land there in 597, and the story follows Wolf as he returns to the land of his fathers, and as the Gospel is preached in Kent. My children, aged 7 - 13 enjoyed this story being read to them, and it really complemented our study of the time period.

I really liked this book. My favorite character was Wolf. I liked the ending part best where something happens to Wolf and Fritha, but you'll have to read the book to find out how it ends. When we started to read it, it became interesting, so I listened and liked the whole thing.

I own a lot of cookbooks, and of them all, Joanne Weir's books are the BEST! All of her recipes include fresh and wholesome foods, and they are SIMPLE and yet DELICIOUS! The pictures are beautiful, and all of her recipes work. Joanne is a gifted chef, teacher and cookbook writer.

Another wonderful cook book from the Williams Sonoma compnay. It is chalk full of the recipes you expect to find in a book about the fall, with the delicious harvest time ingredients. Joanne Weir wrote the recipes for this book and she is a very talented cook indeed. But she has formated her recipes in such a way that any level of cook can manage to follow. One of the nice things about this publisher is that they include large color photos of their completed dishes, and these help with presentation as well. And it looks prettier on the shelf than most cookbooks I have seen.

this was a great book, very entertaining. Too bad it was so short, because I would have enjoyed reading more about the adventures of Mordecai Jones. This book was made into a movie starring George C. Scott, who I love, but let me warn you. The story in the movie is totally different than the book. Abnd the book is the better story of the two.

This is a wonderful little time capsule. Originally published in 1965, the story of Mordecai Jones, also known as "the flim-flam man," and Curley Treadway is an episodic tale filled with the local color of eastern North Carolina 40 years ago. Back then, the eastern part of the state was a rural poor man's land without speedy highways, dependent upon tobacco for its economy. This episodic tale recounts the adventures of young Curley who went AWOL from the military and meets up with Mr. Jones as he is thrown from a train. Being the obliging sort, Curley pulls Jones' head out of a puddle, saving his life, and thus sets up the friendship that creates havoc throughout the eastern part of the state. The cons they pull off are all great fun from selling punchboards, gambling, stealing chickens, playing guitar, and even substituting for the revival minister when it's time to pass the hat. They steal a truck full of liquor from moonshiner Dooley, and proceed to drive that truck all over the East dispensing good spirits wherever they go. Near the end, Curley crashes the truck right into a church, appropriately enough, setting up the final climax of the book. Like all good partnerships, this one is tested by the love of a pretty girl, Miss Bonnie Lee, who takes Curley's heart faster than you can say "jackrabbit." Some of the language remembers the old South as blacks are referred to as "coloreds." Given the time frame, it seems to fit, despite how it might currently be received. Owen certainly knows his local references and gives the flavor of this area. It's good fun, a pretty quick read. Seek & enjoy!

Having enjoyed their Master Class books, I decided to give one of the Races of Renown books a try.

Now, my understanding is that Green Ronin is prohibited from using any race-related material already published by Wizards of the Coast, so I avoided the books on orcs, whom I already know quite well, and drow, who I scarcely ever use, and went for what promised to be the most original book, this one.

This book really is original, providing some unique half-breed races, along with balanced rules for creating you own halfbreeds, either as races or templates. A few of the half-breeds use rules that make them a little to easy to abuse, particularly the Wyrd, an ogre mage/elf cross, but for the most part they're fair and balanced and, most importantly, playable.

There's only one real flaw with this book, and that's a definite trend towards a lot of nature-focused half-breeds, combining various fey creatures with various woods-friendly humanoids. The results are always interesting (I have a player who now wants to play a woodwose), but perhaps a trifle repetitive. Since I generally run a very nature-focused game, I don't have a problem with it and the book doesn't lose any stars.

The feats and items sections are interesting as well, providing rules for making new race-specific items along with a few new examples, and feats that take advantage of the mixed heritage of the book's races.

The prestige classes are adequate but, in my opinion, underpowered. Since they only take up a scant eight or nine pages, again, the book loses no marks with me for this. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go look at the Green Ronin web-site and see if any other books catch my eye.

I absolutly loved this book. I've always loved "half-breeds", so when I saw this book I quickly bought it. I wasn't dissapointed. The art was great (with the exception of Makbin), the writing was wonderful and it also offered quite a bit of "crunchy" parts as well.

Pros:
The layout was wonderful and the writing was well-written and interesting. Though not as entertaining as a novel, I enjoyed reading this book- it was interesting and well written. The art is also great, if slightly comic-booky in style. The races written up are interesting, albeit strange and exotic- but that's the way I like them. The info on half-breeds in society is helpful. All in all it's a great book, but...

Cons:
As the previous reviewer stated, quite alot of the races are crosses between nature friendly humanoids and nature "monsters". There's also quite alot of elf half-breeds. The races listed are also extremely exotic and strange- so if you don't like bizaare stuff then this book isn't for you. I was expecting stuff like orcs/dwarves and that sort of thing, not things like halfling/blink dogs, elf/naga or elf/giant eagles. Still, I was fine with that-I loved it actually, but it wasn't what I was expecting. Bastards and Bloodlines still has some or the more "normalish" half-breeds, too, though.

This my own personal pet-peeve, but it seemed to me like alot of the half-breeds parents got together, had a baby, and then seperated and abandoned the child to one of the parent races. One of the reasons that I love half-breeds is that the idea that two unlike races can fall in love and marry and have a half-breed child is interesting and has great story and roleplaying oppurotunity. A treant that fell in love with an elven druid and worked hard to win her heart, overcome elven resistence and established an area to ensure peace for their children and their lives is much more interesting then "a treant and an elf have a baby and then abandon each other and their child".

Still, this book is great, and has very little flaws.

Art: 9- the art in this book was great, if slightly comic-bookish. I dislike Makbin (one of the artists) but otherwise the art was good.
Writing: 10- it was extremely well-written, with very minor flaws.
Playability: 9- if you ever need a resource for half-breeds, this is the book for you. One of my players begged for me to "magically change" his half-elf into a Decataur, they loved it. I've also dropped in a couple Half-breed NPC's in the campaign, and they made the game much more interesting and fun.

All in all, a great book, and if your even remotely interested in half-breeds, this is your book- buy it now!

It is gratifying to find such a carefully written study of bebop -- a study which focuses from start to finish on the music. We know that many of the musicians had troubled lives and suffered with drugs and discrimination. The social and personal dimensions of bebop, however, have received ample attention in books, movies, and TV shows. This book is almost unique in providing a readable and scholarly analysis of the music. Owens faced a number of choices as to how to present his material, and he made the intelligent choice each time: Focus on the music (rare), not the details of "personal problems" (common); present just the right level of technical detail, never vague but never overly pedantic; trace the historical development of the music rather than an abstract description or a "how to play bop" approach (also common); and my favorite: organize the discussion around the idioms and masters of specific instruments -- sax, trumpet, piano, and so on. This last choice enables him to provide fresh insights as to how specific stylistic innovations on different instruments finally produced the characteristic ensemble style of bebop. I've bought two copies and I'm constantly recommending this book to friends.

A thourough exploration of the style of Parker, Gillespie, Davis, Evans and dozens of others. Replete with transcriptions and stylistic summaries. Many recordings reviewed. And his enthusiam for all that is Bebop matches Clint Eastwood's for "Bird". A musicological gem.

I recently bought this book for my niece and nephew and it worked like a magic charm. It is quite an enjoyable, witty, and original bedtime story that children ages 3 to 5 and even older will fall in love with. Reading and listening to it will bring lots of fun to parents and children alike!

I just got this book today and reading this story with my son (5) tonight was a real treat. It is amusing and interesting, with wonderful illustrations and a good feel about it. Just perfect for a bedtime story.