Open Books

I love these ladies, they make cooking on an open fire a breeze. I use thier advice at reeactment events on an open fire. A pleasure to read and easy to follow. Lots of information to absorb and tasty recipes to try. I recommend this book for beginners and beyond.

The Open-Hearth Cookbook: Recapturing The Flavor Of Early America by Suzanne Goldenson and Doris Simpson is an interesting (and even inspiring!) collection of recipes drawn from the early times and kitchens of America. From Cornmeal Biscuits; Soft Gingerbread; and Pumpkin Pudding, to Wild Blueberry Tart; Oatmeal Cinnamon Bread; and Green Lip Mussel Stew, The Open-Hearth Cookbook reinvents the ideals of nostalgic cooking, educating the reader of how to use roast, toast, bake, broil and more with such devices as dutch ovens, fireplaces, waffle irons and many more, as well as the proper wood to use in particular procedures. From first page to last, The Open-Hearth Cookbook is increasingly informative for all readers interested in age-old cookery practice, as well as those merely intrigued by historical innovation in the culinary field of American culture.

This book gives very useful tips in cooking itself. There are a variety of recipes. I have made some of them already and the taste is fantastic. Please keep finding those old recipes and converting them to correct measurements. Thank you again for a wonderful cookbook. I have your other book as well. I do open-hearth demonstrating at a farm museum and the other artisians look the meals.

Quite frankly, I think that this is the greatest piece of critical philosophy written in the 20th century, and it is definitely in my top three. It was so good that it virtually destroyed the attempts of the Realist schools in the earlier 20th century to replace epistemological dualism with epistemological monism. And of course, in case the idealists started to get too proud, Lovejoy showed quite clearly that unless they were trying to claim insights they were not rationally entitled to, there is nothing about reality that supports the claim that objects of perception are found in an Absolute Mind.

I bought this book almost a year ago and it collected dust on my shelf because I lacked the level of philosophical sophistication required to attack it directly. Over the past year, I became more acquainted with philosophy and its history, most especially the works of Brand Blanshard and Laurence Bonjour.

I was arguing the case for psychophysical dualism on a website recently. I was already an epistemological dualist, having come to the conclusion that even the best-developed forms of rational and objective idealism were essentially dualistic. This is even more obviously the case if one incorporates the insights of modern physics about the constituents of matter, and its insights into time and space. However, psychophysical dualism, mostly because it is related to interactionist/dualist beliefs about interaction between the mind and the body or the mind and the brain, is associated with mysticism.

To see if I could find anything to make or break my belief in psychophysical dualism, I picked up this book, which I hadn't picked up in a while, having being frightened by such terms as the *cognescendum* a year ago. It was a great joy to read, as Lovejoy carefully laid out the secular and rational case for epistemic dualism and the related psychophysical dualism, while refuting philosophers that are far more famous that he was. Lovejoy explained that illusions and dreams, amongst other factors, created a problem that was best handled by the separation of the physical from the mental and the development of a gradually developed epistemology to make the causal connections work.

Bertrand Russell's realist position was criticized so devastatingly by Lovejoy that Russell because a dualist, with the belief (shared by most epistemic dualists) that the objects of our immediate perception are fundamentally mind-related. The trick, as Lovejoy noted, is to draw the right causal connections from the objects presented in perception to the subject matter of the physical sciences while being wary of the mind's ability to fall into error.

Epistemological monism has been slaughtered. As Brand Blanshard said, _The Revolt against Dualism_ is their `tombstone'. Anyone wishing to argue uncritically against the bifurcation of mental objects and physical reality should read some philosophy, and then pick up this book. In fact, I might one day make an attempt to make its insights far more accessible to the common reader. However, common people sometimes know far more about these things than some so-called "great philosophers" - they just get carried away by the first philosopher that floats an idea around them.

The ideas in this book are a great antidote to such a problem. Lovejoy discusses a problem of great importance, especially to those who practice any field that involves epistemology.

Highly recommended.

This book explains why epistemological dualism must remain an objective reality. Arthur Lovejoy counters all of the historical and contemporary philosophical arguements against dualism with learned and precise answers to why we can never fully be connected to the world, at least as far as our perception is concerned. This book is liable to cause a crises in the minds of the "we are all one" and the "I am one with the world" types. The one consolation they may have is that Lovejoy never himself made an effort to experience the more Eastern states of meditation, such as Zen or certain Hindu forms. Thus he is only qualified to state his claim of dualism in intellectual and objective terms, and not by all subjective experiences. He brushes the subjective off rather quickly, and focuses on the scientific and objectively verifiable flaws of monism. It is a fascinating book to read for the pedantically philosophical and metaphysical scientist types (not "New Age" metaphysics, which naively has misinterpreted metaphysics as a path to monism), but CAVEAT EMPTOR, this is some thick stuff and requires a certain degree of hard prior study in the fields of critical thinking, the history of philosophical ideas, and metaphysics. A partial knowledge of the general concepts of physics would also make this book more enetertaining. If you are not entertained by this book, then you probably shouldn't be reading it.

This is not a book for those with a merely casual interest in philosophy. It is much too technical and difficult for the general reader. But for advanced students and the philosophically literate, this book is a must. Lovejoy was a brilliant master at the art of philosophical dissection. In "The Revolt Against Dualism," he dissects the view advanced by the so-called "neo-realists" which denies the traditional distinction between the perception of an object and the object itself. Lovejoy subjects a variety of inordinately technical arguments defending this view to devastating analysis, demonstrating how each of them fails to make its case. Lovejoy argues that all of these attempts to ignore the distinction between the perception of things and the things themselves constitutes a futile revolt against epistemological dualism.

Although this issue of epistemological dualism and distinguishing between perceptions of objects and the objects themselves may seem to be a mere technical problem without any real world significance, it nevertheless is one of the most important issues in philosophy. Confusion concerning the relation between ideas and the their objects in reality has probably given rise to more errors in philosophy than any other issue. All doctrines of philosophical idealism, whether skeptical or mystical in nature, are rooted in the failure to understand the duality between perceptions and the things perceived. The belief in what one philosopher called the "efficacy of consciousness" (i.e., the belief that consciousness can be regarded as a power in and of itself) can also be traced to this revolt against dualism. And so, although the issue of epistemological dualism may be a mere technical problem without any immediate practical significance, it is not without importance in philosophy. If a philosopher is confused or mistaken on this issue, he is likely to be confused or mistaken on a great many others. Hence, the significance of Lovejoy's masterful analysis of the revolt against dualism.

Doctor Blanshard has been criticized for not being a very original thinker. Whatever one thinks about original thought, one must admire a philosopher who expends the effort necessary to be understood and never hides in obscurity. Blanshard wrote a book 'On philosophical Style' and a better example of excellence in writing style cannot be found than this book edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp. As a student of philosophy I always found it difficult to locate material that could present philosophy alive and allow one to study it as though taking part in the ideas. As each philosopher presents Blanshard with his/her criticism, one finds oneself actively participating in the cut and thrust of ideas as Blanshard responds at the end of each essay. Only the dialogues of Plato rival this work in providing the reader with the impression that he/she is present as great minds exchange ideas. The professional and amateur will long treasure this fine example of philosophical debate. END

Brand Blanshard, easily the twentieth century's sturdiest defender of reason, rationality and the "rational temper," exemplified that temper in every line of his graceful prose.

His solid defenses of e.g. the nature of mind as seeking and striving after ends, the end of thought as systematic understanding, the coherence theory of truth, the objective existence of necessary logical and causal connections, the universe as a strongly coherent logical and causal whole in which every fact entails and is entailed by every other, the meaning of "goodness" as the objective fulfillment of human ends accompanied by the taking of satisfaction in that fulfillment -- his defenses of these views and others won the admiration of friends and critics alike, both for the thoroughness of his approach and for the generosity with which he treated opposing positions.

In this volume he exchanges essays with many of those friends and critics, providing yet again not only a defense of his views but an admirable example of how to conduct oneself in philosophical controversy.

In a departure from the practice followed in the other volumes in this series, Blanshard replies to each critical essay individually rather than in one long reply at the volume's end. The effect is that the book reads like an extended philosophical conversation, in which Blanshard deals personally and closely with each thinker in turn.

His replies also indicate where his thought had grown and developed since the publication of _The Nature of Thought_ in the 1930s, thereby continuing his thought along the lines laid down in _Reason and Analysis_, _Reason and Goodness_, and Reason and Belief_.

The essays and replies are arranged topically, covering the full range of Blanshard's rationalist philosophy. And an introductory autobiographical essay provides a delightfully personal introduction to the man himself.

No student of Blanshard can afford to miss this thorough and thoroughly engaging volume.

Brand Blanshard, easily the twentieth century's sturdiest defender of reason, rationality and the "rational temper," exemplified that temper in every line of his graceful prose. His solid defenses of e.g. the nature of mind as seeking and striving after ends, the end of thought as systematic understanding, the coherence theory of truth, the objective existence of necessary logical and causal connections, the universe as a strongly coherent logical and causal whole in which every fact entails and is entailed by every other, the meaning of "goodness" as the objective fulfillment of human ends accompanied by the taking of satisfaction in that fulfillment -- his defenses of these views and others won the admiration of friends and critics alike, both for the thoroughness of his approach and for the generosity with which he treated opposing positions. In this volume he exchanges essays with many of those friends and critics, providing yet again not only a defense of his views but an admirable example of how to conduct oneself in philosophical controversy. In a departure from the practice followed in the other volumes in this series, Blanshard replies to each critical essay individually rather than in one long reply at the volume's end. The effect is that the book reads like an extended philosophical conversation, in which Blanshard deals personally and closely with each thinker in turn. His replies also indicate where his thought had grown and developed since the publication of _The Nature of Thought_ in the 1930s, thereby continuing his thought along the lines laid down in _Reason and Analysis_, _Reason and Goodness_, and Reason and Belief_. The essays and replies are arranged topically, covering the full range of Blanshard's rationalist philosophy. And an introductory autobiographical essay provides a delightfully personal introduction to the man himself. No student of Blanshard can afford to miss this thorough and thoroughly engaging volume.

This is a guide for deepening one's Buddhist meditation practice - a working manual to use during a multi-week practice period. Not an "at-arm's-length" academic study, this book is to be read progressively, chapter by chapter, as if actually participating in a Buddhist meditation practice period. On a very human level, Carolyn applies Buddhism in a practical manner in a way that is useful to modern day-to-day life by relating history, scientific research, and (best of all) real-life ancedotes full of humor, poignancy and brilliance.

This book offers me a great resource of compassionate understanding and firm grounding from which to engage my practice and my life. It is accessible and timely.

A very helpful and simple explanation of two major types of meditation. Easy to read history of movement of Buddhism from its inception to arriving in the U.S. Ms Atkinson's warmth, understanding, calmness and intelligence shine through. She is a gifted teacher, offering an antidote to our frantic mind.

Philosophers' talk about rationality is apt to soar into the stratosphere of abstractions so it must be stated that Bartley's approach has immediate and practical applications. Following his teacher, Karl Popper, the operating principle of Bartley's rationalism is the formula "I may he wrong and you may be right, and by means of critical discussion we may get nearer to the truth of the matter".

Bartley has offered a solution to the basic logical problem of rationality, the problem of "the limits of criticism", that is, how to deal with a persistent critic, like a nagging child, who keeps asking "Why?" each time an answer is offered to a question. His response is based on Popper's identification of the authoritarian structure of western thought which alerted Bartley to a previously undetected assumption (shared by rationalists and irrationalists alike and so not generally debated or even recognized), which he called "justificationism". It is summed up in the formula:

"Beliefs must be justified by an appeal to an authority of some kind (generally the source of the belief in question) and this makes the belief either rational, or if not rational, at least valid for the person who holds it."

Among the contenders for authoritative status are "hard facts", "the light of reason", and the informed heart, logic, intuition, sacred traditions and innumerable religious authorities. In the Anglo-Saxon tradition of Empiricism the authority of sense experience was adopted, so "seeing is believing" and science provides the epitome of rational knowledge. In the Continental Rationalist tradition following Descartes the locus of authority resides with the intellectual intuition.

Having discovered the hidden premise of justificationism, Popper and Bartley proceeded to criticise it, showing that we can dispense with the aim of positive justification without giving up anything that really matters, such as respect for facts, for arguments, for the systematic use of reason to weigh and test the validity of beliefs and assumptions. This new theory of rationality is not a theory of justified belief, it is a theory of critical preference between options. We can form a preference for one option rather than another (whether for a car, a scientific theory or a political allegiance) in the light of evidence and arguments produced to that time. This preference may (or may not) he revised in the light of new evidence and arguments. It may be protested that this is not a great novelty, it is just commonsense. But historically, commonsense has proved no match for learned justificationist arguments.

The problem for rationalists is that the traditional dogmatic framework of thought guarantees that the irrationalists can always win, any time that they force the issue and demand that the rationalist produce truly justified beliefs. In this way the dogmatic framework provides the seedbed for the weeds of irrationalism and this yields the shocking discovery that dogmatic (justificationist) theories of rationality actually nurture and maintain that seedbed. Hence there is nothing very surprising about the survival of irrationalism despite the onward march of science and the generally high regard for rationality in Western civilisation (Romantic reactions not withstanding). It seems that rationalists in the mould of Bertrand Russell nurture the seeds of their own destruction by persisting in the quest for justified beliefs and so helping to maintain the justificationist framework of thought.

The story of "The Retreat to Commitment" began as a somewhat esoteric study of rationality in Protestant theology.

"This essay is a study of problems of self-identity and integrity in the Protestant and rationalist traditions. Probably the two most influential spiritual traditions of Western culture, both have helped provide involvement and purposive living in the past: and both offer their services to help overcome present-day alienation. However, these two traditions not only are internally confused but also are breeding confusion and alienation quite out of proportion to the internal confusion of either."

Bartley sketched the evolution of liberal Protestant theology in the 19th and 20th centuries as non-fundamentalist Christians tried to retain both Christianity and rationality in the face of the rising tides of science and secularisation. Social reform was a dominant motif, inspired by the example of the historical Jesus but further research destroyed the image of the historical Jesus as a paragon of humanitarian virtues and goodwill. This posed a major threat for liberal, rational Protestants because Christians had to make a choice between a form of liberal Christianity without assent to the newly revealed non-liberal historical Jesus or a new form of Christianity, however irrational (and non-liberal) this may be.

Karl Barth started the new trend in Protestant theology by following the lead of Kierkegaard, who attacked rational, ethics-centered Christianity with a defence of the "absurd". His ideal Christian was not the liberal vision of the historical Jesus but Abraham who was prepared to sacrifice his beloved son, Isaac at God's command. To be a man of faith was to obey, blindly uncritically, without reason, absurdly. It is readily apparent that this position was unaffected by the collapse of the liberal version of the historical Jesus and Kierkegaard was revealed as a man long in advance of his time, in fact an existentialist, before the term was even invented.

Following the directions charted by Kirkegaard and Bath the new theologians accept that the Christian faith is based on an irrational commitment but they are secure in the knowledge that their critics, whether humanists or Marxists or Hindus cannot demonstrate a fully-justified rational basis for their criticism. They can always respond with the "boomerang" argument, the tu tuque "You too!" rejoinder. "Maybe I cannot justify my position, but you cannot justify yours either". This has been a great stand-by for people wishing to evade fundamental issues and of course it is based on the assumption of justificationism, which traditionally provides the invisible framework of debate. So the answer, following Bartley, is to widen the scope of the argument to encompass the traditional framework, to criticise and dispense with the assumption of justificationism itself.

More essays and reviews of Bartley can be found on line by a google search Bartley + Rathouse.

I read this book years ago when it first came out and it changed my life. Bartley extends Popper's critical rationalism to what he calls 'Pancritical Rationalism'. Justficationists, as opposed to falsificationists, ultimately hold to some kind of presuppositionalism. However, the presuppositions are held for non-rational reasons. This is justified because everyone supposedly has to do this -- their defense is 'to quoque...you too'. Bartley claims a way out is to hold these presuppositons heuristically and non-dogmatically. If they are open to revision and lead to interesting claims that can be disconfirmed by experience then you can claim to be rational. If your persuppositions can never be revised and you will go to your grave defending them, then you are not a rational person. Bartley uses the history of Protestantism as an example of a rational scientific world-view that turns itself into an irrational ideology in order to defend( save ) itself against modern science. This is the section that had the greatest impact on my life ( for the best ). I realized in order to be rational I had to give up my faith or forever resort to irrationally ( and dogmatically) held first principles to to defend my position.

Well worth reading if you are a Christian, or interested in epistemology or Karl Popper's philosophy.

In this book, the author attempts to do no less than pinpoint the problem with all philosophical thought: its reliance on a justificationalist core, Kierkegaard's "leap of faith." If everyone is required to make an irrational, arbitrary commitment to a system (Christianity, Nazism, atheism, some of many!), then nothing is true and objective truth goes out the window. His solution, after going through a fascinating and witty romp through Protestant history, is to refute this cop-out and hold everything under criticism, even criticism itself. This book struck at the heart of things I have been thinking about for years, and is very highly recommended.

This is a really good book to introduce SGML. Also, especially now that SoftQuad is out of the SGML web browser business, and no longer provides its Panorama SGML Netscape browser plug-in, the copy of Panorama Pro included on the CD that comes with the book is worth more than the price of the book.

Are you frustrated trying to get started learning about SGML, and how to do things with it? Do you feel like SGML is something out of a Kafka story? This book really can help you make that first big leap from helpless confusion, to being able to do things with SGML, and to be oriented so that you *can* become your own guide in going farther. Buy it: It works if you work it!

This book is an excellent introduction to SGML and XML. Its well written and covers the topic in a reasonable amount of detail. It includes an evaluation version of an SGML browser from Softquad that is worth the price of the book itself.

I read this book for school... but I would recommend it to anyone interested in the subject matter. (Reading it, I was always wandering around talking to friends and family about it). The book is short, but there is a lot to think about. :)

Although the photographs are dated, the material is classic. This book is a must for anyone who is involved with design or review of open spaces. It shows how people use open space and identifies the common elements of successful spaces. While the elements all seem logical, the book shows how we often fly in the face of logic when using these spaces. The book focuses primarily on plazas and small parks in New York City, but includes a section for smaller cities with low rise buildings. The information can also be applied to parks in any size town. This book is a facinating case study in social ecology.

Years ago I watched an episode of NOVA on PBS on William H. Whyte that explained the background and purpose and accomplishments of his project to study what makes urban spaces in cities work. I sat there riveted, as he methodically and carefully unveiled a vast range of urban phenomena of which I had hitherto been unaware.

The background to his study was this: following the enormous success of the plaza of Mies van der Rohe's Seagram Building in New York in the mid-1950s, the city began to give tax breaks to new buildings that included plazas as part of their design. At the Seagram, people found in the heart of the city a marvelous space in which to congregate, to eat lunch, to sit and talk, and just enjoy a few minutes away from the office. While the idea of providing an incentive to new plaza development was unquestionably a great aim, a small problem developed: many of the new plazas were, unlike that of the Seagram, just dreadful. Cold, austere, people unfriendly, unwelcoming, many of them seemed designed more to keep people away than give them a place to enjoy themselves. This is where Whyte comes in. New York City was concerned with codifying what made a successful plaza, and giving tax breaks based more on the kind of plaza being built, rather than any kind of plaza at all. So, Whyte was charged with discovering precisely what goes into a successful urban space. The results of his exhaustive study are summed up in this brilliant monograph.

Whyte took cameras and began filming all kinds of urban spots in plazas and parks, and on regular sidewalks. As a result of this study, he was able first to analyze how urban spaces work, and secondly on the basis of this make, to make suggestions as to how to make successful spaces. He discusses the enormous value and utility of using fountains or falling water both to provide aesthetic benefits and to create a barrier of white noise between an urban space and the street. He shows the value of having a variety of steps and levels in providing fun places to sit. He allays the fears of those who are afraid that a plaza will attract undesirables by showing that the homeless tend to go where other people are not. He displays the patterns of traffic on sidewalks and the function that street food can play. Whyte comes across not merely as a sophisticated urban planner and social scientist: he is revealed as a visionary.

I think that this ought to be a must-read for anyone with any curiosity about cities and the potential they possess for a vibrant and exciting social life. Here in my own city of Chicago, I constantly lament that Whyte's lessons go unheeded and unlearned. We Chicagoans take pride in how clean our downtown area is, but we possess very, very few plazas, instead having virtually all of our buildings coming all the way to the edge of the sidewalk. I lament that there are so few places in the Loop and the near North to sit at lunch, that so very, very little has been done along the river to make it people friendly, and that there are so few places to congregate. We have a gorgeous, inpirational skyline, but on the sidewalk level, things are different. I wish our city planners had more of Whyte's view of things.

I just purchased the second edition of this book (2002 edition), and though the main text is still 16 pages, many additional pages of valuable information has been added to the original book I purchased several years ago. It's great for teaching kids how to know what is a good touch and what is a bad touch. In fact, my therapist recommended it as a tool for my own children. It's full of color, fun rhymes, and a message told in a way that it doesn't scare or bore kids. I highly recommend this book.

I called ... the publisher's direct number and found the book is not only still in print, but in its second edition. It was helpful for my kids and others going through issues related to prevention of child sexual abuse.

I use this book with my pre-schoolers as well as my own children. It is easy to for children to understand and fun to hear. It's a non-scary way for children to learn the difference between a good touch and a bad touch. I highly recommend that every parent reads this with their young children.

After working with Nancy Boyles in a staff development workshop, I purchased this book to keep in the classroom. Open-ended response is one of the weakest areas of test performance for most students, and this book gives helpful hints, worksheets and tools to improve student responses. Highly recommended!

I teach sixth grade language arts and my students have learning disabilities. This book is one of the BEST resources I have found! It is clear and explicit...the answer frames help guide my students and the examples offer fabulous support. I highly recommend this book to any teacher of writing in grades 4 or higher.

This is the perfect way for teachers to break down open-ended questions. So many states are asking students to write open-ended answers and teachers don't always know how to teach this. This book allows teachers to include open-ended questions as a part of their everyday teaching; it doesn't teach to the test. In fact, it teaches students to become more critical thinkers.

I would suggest this book as the companion to Nancy's other book entitled Constructing Meaning Through Kid-Friendly Comprehension Strategy Instruction. It focuses on the comprehension strategies.

Nancy's work is teacher and kid-friendly. Her books include reproducible pages that are the "right size." No need to enlarge and waste time. You could also print from the included CD.

This is too easy to pass on. Teachers of elementary and middle grade levels need this book!

Reggie Marra moves the reader with his brief but precise and intelligent poetry. In the first half of This Open Eye: Seeing What We Do he describes in few but effective words the photographic images from the Middle East that many will be familiar with, as many could be found on the cover of the New York Times. His poems offer a poignant perspective of these images, and encompass the sorrow and frustration that wells deep within us all.

The second half deals still with the Iraq conflict, however, the pieces are independent of the first half's imagery and tend to focus on the conflict as experienced by the United States. Again, Marra succeeds in making the reader feel and think in no small matter about the conflict. It is a timely collection that manages to speak to issues beyond its subject matter, as all great art should.

Very highly recommended reading, This Open Eye: Seeing What We Do: Poems 2003-2005 is an intriguing and inspiring collection of the most recent verse of renowned poet Reggie Marra. This Open Eye: Seeing What We Do calls on the readers attention and intuition for the remarkable metaphors it so tactfully presents. This Open Eye: Swollen shut the right/eye seeps semi-clotted/blood that streams/and blotches a map of/hell across the three-/year-old face. Wide/open, the left eye/appears injury-free--/untouched, but/ultimately more/lethal./Through this open/eye the child sees/the world that has/closed the other.

I couldn't stop reading THIS OPEN EYE. It brought me chills, and it made me cry. All the voices, and the prose--my God, it's so beautifully done. I remember seeing some of the victims the poems bring to light--specifically the little girl shot in the head with her father, the soldier who had to return his purple heart--I remember staring at them myself in the paper, and this book does them such deep justice.

I want to thank Reggie Marra for noticing the things I noticed. What we're going through is so painful, and it's so hard not to be completely dismayed, but one thing that brings me comfort is to hear how I'm feeling articulated by someone else, and he does it so powerfully. He's gone the distance and noticed everything--and that's just so amazing. His language is so wonderfully concise and straightforward. I think it's so important for artists to reflect back what we're doing, and to do it while it's still contemporary--and Reggie Marra really has. Everyone should read this.